# Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay



## Retreater

I was running a game last week in which half of the party handled a tense diplomatic situation very poorly. Going into the meeting, they knew the ruler was unstable and severely punished any dissent in his land - having heard from various NPCs and seeing it firsthand. 
The party got a private audience with the ruler and things were moving friendly enough, when a player (probably bored with the negotiations and playing the "but I have a low Charisma card") decided to trump the party's hand and yell out something to the effect of "you're crazy and don't deserve leadership here." For this affront, the ruler yelled for his guards to come and arrest that character. In response, another party member tried (and failed) to grapple the ruler and put a knife to his throat to take him as a hostage. 
The other two characters left the room and proclaimed their innocence. With some good roleplay (and great dice rolls) they were able to convince the ruler and his guards that they had no part of the attack and were allowed to leave.
The two other characters (the would-be assassin and the instigator) were taken to the public stocks to await trial that could end in execution (or at the very least, expulsion from the land).
That night they were given several opportunities to escape the stocks, but the would-be assassin failed and the instigator said he would rather die than let this corrupt man stay in power. 
What's a DM to do? Let it play out how it would in reality (execution) or break verisimilitude and reward murder-hoboism and let them escape with a deus ex machina? Meanwhile the players not involved in the coup attempt are being punished as the spotlight focuses on the two scoundrels - since their characters aren't wanting to be involved with the escape attempts. 
I did speak to the players after the game. The instigator apologized for "ruining the campaign." (Even though I tried to tell him that the campaign hadn't been ruined, merely that he has made the characters' situation more difficult and there would be consequences.)


----------



## prabe

So just thinking, here:

You have two players who chose ... poorly, and their characters are in a bad spot, and you have two other players who made arguably better decisions and aren't in that bad spot--and the latter players aren't interested in helping the former out of that bad spot. This isn't unreasonable, since those characters's lives have been complicated up enough, and those players at least understood the situation of the Mad Ruler well enough not to push his buttons.

If the players whose characters aren't in the stocks are serious about not helping the character that are in the stocks, and the outcome for the characters that are in the stocks seems likely to be an execution, I'd maybe see if I couldn't schedule a session with just those players to see if they could get their characters out of that--no point in forcing the other players to sit through that. It doesn't sound really plausible, but maybe they'll think of something; and if they don't they can have shiny new characters for the next session with the other players.

I wouldn't necessarily just give them a pass, but I might see if I could find a couple slim options they could maybe grasp at. Depending on level, PCs can have a lot of resources. And if they die, they die--bring on the shiny-new.


----------



## atanakar

They didn't kill the king or spill his blood. I wouldn't kill them. But I would send them at a forced labor work camp for x number of months. Give the players temporary NPCs (not new characters) to play with. Let them recover their PCs after the period has passed. It's up to you if you want to make solo sessions while they are in the work camp. But I wouldn't.


----------



## TwoSix

The instigator's motivations seem a little opaque to me.  He apologized for "ruining the campaign", but at the same time, his character doesn't seem to have a real desire to escape.  He needs to back out of character, figure out what he wants to happen "as a player", and then get his character there.


----------



## prabe

TwoSix said:


> The instigator's motivations seem a little opaque to me.  He apologized for "ruining the campaign", but at the same time, his character doesn't seem to have a real desire to escape.  He needs to back out of character, figure out what he wants to happen "as a player", and then get his character there.




Allowing for the possibility that he wants a new character, of course.

I figure the "motivations" here are that he's used to playing in campaigns where violence or the threat thereof was the solution to everything, and he found himself in a position where the character he'd built for that sort of campaign was in a situation where he was useless, and the player was bored.


----------



## TwoSix

prabe said:


> Allowing for the possibility that he wants a new character, of course.
> 
> I figure the "motivations" here are that he's used to playing in campaigns where violence or the threat thereof was the solution to everything, and he found himself in a position where the character he'd built for that sort of campaign was in a situation where he was useless, and the player was bored.



Of course.  He does sound like a classic "Butt Kicker" player (to use Robin Laws' categories), but he must have some interest in deciding what happens next.  That might certainly be "It's time for a new character"!


----------



## Ovinomancer

This is an out of game problem.  There's an issue with these two players being willing to engage in the game presented and this needs to be discussed out of context of the game rather than finding ways in game to address the situation.  Why did these two players think their actions were appropriate/necessary?  What was their play goal, here?  What did the other players think about this, and why did they not have a similar problem?  I think you need to have a table discussion before trying to figure out what happens in game.


----------



## the Jester

Actions have consequences. You established what those consequences would be, and two of the pcs spat in the eye of those potential consequences. If they don't suffer those consequences, you will have undermined yourself thoroughly- they won't have any reason to believe that consequences are ever real. Execute them, or be prepared for them to manhandle any ruler they meet, break any law they are told about, and pee on the altar of any temple they enter while expecting to get away with it.


----------



## Umbran

atanakar said:


> They didn't kill the king or spill his blood. I wouldn't kill them.




"they knew the ruler was unstable and severely punished any dissent in his land"

Leniency does not sound like the way this king would go without really good reason.  Grab the king and put a knife to his throat?  No, you're not getting off easy.

If you don't want to kill them outright - is the world such that there's a Cleric in service to the King that can cast Geas?  Don't make it a death sentence, make it a, "you _will_ directly serve my interests, publicly and dangerously, or die".


----------



## Ralif Redhammer

I've encountered players that sound a whole lot like this. For whatever reason, there's a certain type of player, that when presented with a figure of authority, cannot help but insult and abuse them. It's related to the Instigator player type - they like to do stuff just to make stuff happen, good or bad. But I think it's also a way at pushing at the boundaries of the game, like trying to find the limit to the map in a videogame. They want to see just how much they can push at the world without it breaking.

What I try to do with these sorts of disruptive behaviors is ask the rest of the table "do you let your comrade do this" or "does your fellow adventure speak for you." Yes, that's stomping on the disruptive player's freedom of choice. But D&D is a group game, and some decisions have to be made as a group, not held hostage by one or two disruptive players.

My way forward when I can't head it off with the aforementioned techniques has generally with these folks is generally to ask myself three questions: What are the consequences of their actions? What is the way forward from this development? How do I make it still be fun for everyone (including myself)?



Retreater said:


> What's a DM to do? Let it play out how it would in reality (execution) or break verisimilitude and reward murder-hoboism and let them escape with a deus ex machina? Meanwhile the players not involved in the coup attempt are being punished as the spotlight focuses on the two scoundrels - since their characters aren't wanting to be involved with the escape attempts.


----------



## Shiroiken

Without knowing details of the campaign, it's tricky to provide some advice. If the despot was intended to be ousted, this would be a good spot to start/introduce a rebellion that frees the two idiots characters. If the despot was supposed to remain in power as an ally, then these two are probably gonna have to die (even if they somehow escaped, the party couldn't be an ally to the despot anymore). If neither matters, then you have more options.

If it were me, I'd have a nice public execution (giving the other players one last chance to decide to save them), as actions should have consequences. The players made their poor choices, and should have their characters pay for them. I'd worry about the instigating player, however, to make sure this isn't a pattern.


----------



## Big Bucky

“You come at the king you best not miss”

this isn’t a problem it’s a gift. An attempt on the insane despot’s life in broad daylight and the would-be Kingslayer refusing to recant under penalty of death?  I would kill for that kind of scenario (heyoo!)

The PC is willing to die for a just cause so oblige them. Is the crazy king going to pardon
 them for an attempt on his life in broad daylight and in front of his own guards. No he would execute them and probably mount their heads on pikes as a warning to others. 

Your job is not to keep the PCs alive. It’s to present a realistic and consistent world. Do what you think would happen if this was real life. 

and by the way, what would happen to the town when there is an attempted coup against the tyrant? Will they see your player as a hero and martyr? What about when he says his only regret is he has but one life to give in the fight against tyranny before the blade separates his head from his body? Will this be the impetus for an uprising? Will the people beg the heroes finish the job and take their place on the throne? What an adventure hook they’ve given you.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Big Bucky said:


> “You come at the king you best not miss”
> 
> this isn’t a problem it’s a gift. An attempt on the insane despot’s life in broad daylight and the would-be Kingslayer refusing to recant under penalty of death?  I would kill for that kind of scenario (heyoo!)
> 
> The PC is willing to die for a just cause so oblige them. Is the crazy king going to pardon
> them for an attempt on his life in broad daylight and in front of his own guards. No he would execute them and probably mount their heads on pikes as a warning to others.
> 
> Your job is not to keep the PCs alive. It’s to present a realistic and consistent world. Do what you think would happen if this was real life.
> 
> and by the way, what would happen to the town when there is an attempted coup against the tyrant? Will they see your player as a hero and martyr? What about when he says his only regret is he has but one life to give in the fight against tyranny before the blade separates his head from his body? Will this be the impetus for an uprising? Will the people beg the heroes finish the job and take their place on the throne? What an adventure hook they’ve given you.




Yes. Exactly this (and I was even going to use the same quote).

Attempted assassination is, if anything, _worse_ than assassination; if you succeed, you might have a plausible approach with the successor. But there is no way a ruler is going to let someone try and attack him and get away with it.

If the players try to escape, play it out; but there are consequences to their actions- and this is looking like, unless something changes, an execution. There are worse things in life than to die at the hands of a tyrant (which may be something for the surviving two party members to mull over as well).


----------



## Numidius

The sentiment and inconsiderate actions of the two arrogant pc's should resonate in a lot of people in that kingdom. I would let consequences happen that involve the situation/setting/factions all around.


----------



## uzirath

I agree with others here that the consequences should be real and lasting. This doesn't necessarily mean that the PCs need to die; that depends more on your table culture. Personally, I would have an OOC discussion with the players (including the less headstrong two) to see what they want and then consider how much you are willing to adjust the campaign. The consequence could be a public execution, or the Geas idea from @Umbran, or escaping with a (high!) price on their heads, or causing the nascent rebellion to be stomped out as the ruler unleashes his secret police, etc.


----------



## Numidius

I'm not fond of OOC discussions. I prefer to resolve things IC. 
As per the type of public punishment, pit them against a couple of minotaurs in a coliseum... and see if their comrades join in the fight to help them. Or, a royal rumble against a dozen of other disrespectful citizens that are already in jail . Who survives is free. Only one


----------



## prabe

Numidius said:


> I'm not fond of OOC discussions. I prefer to resolve things IC.




I can understand that, but if the player decided his character was going to act that way because the player was bored or because the player just was expecting a different kind of game, it's kinda an OOC problem, so solving it OOC is likely to be easier and more likely to work than solving it IC. My takeaway from the OP was that this was a player decision, not something inherent in the character.


----------



## Big Bucky

@Snarf Zagyg now I want to do Blades in the Dark hack of The Wire. Omar comin’!

As an aside, I wish we could get away from the idea that the GM kills the PCs. That’s not fair to put that responsibilty on one person. The GM presents interesting situations/problems/obstacles and describes how the world reacts to what the PCs do. If you do stuff that’s likely to get you killed you are likely going to get killed sooner or later.


----------



## Li Shenron

It's hard to tell what was the feeling of the people around the table without being there. 

If the initiator of the mess really disrupted the game because he was "bored", I would not invite him back to play. Think of it this way: if you join a game of football/basketball/whatever, do you think it's acceptable to start playing like an idiot because the game is not going according to your wishes? If you play, play decently until the end of the session as a respect to the others.

But maybe the player genuinely thought that his antics were going to spice up the scene. Or he really gave in to boredom, but later realized it was a mistake to overreact. 

At this point I wouldn't mind to ask what they prefer to happen. It's ok if they agree that the party is broken and the two guilty PCs should be abandoned (although I don't buy this enthusiasm towards the "realism" of executions, and would rather simply leave them behind as NPCs, who knows what happens, they might even come handy later), in which case I'd encourage the two players to make new PCs better suited to the story.

It's also ok if they decide that they want to keep playing them, if the other two still care for them. Frankly, I am a bit suspicious of the other two players as well, because I have seen plenty of captured/arrested PCs through the years, but not being abandoned by the others... this is not the kind of "realism" I am looking for in D&D. I run the game with the assumption that the PCs care for each other because they are the heroes (or at least the protagonists), if everyone is for themselves then why bother... it's the "realism" of the remaining 99% of the world population i.e. the NPCs.

If they choose to continue, I wouldn't mind to come up with some external help. Which by the way happens all the time in most movies, novels and such.


----------



## the Jester

Big Bucky said:


> As an aside, I wish we could get away from the idea that the GM kills the PCs.




Agreed- in this case, IMHO, the two pcs have pretty much killed themselves.


----------



## prabe

Big Bucky said:


> As an aside, I wish we could get away from the idea that the GM kills the PCs. That’s not fair to put that responsibilty on one person. The GM presents interesting situations/problems/obstacles and describes how the world reacts to what the PCs do. If you do stuff that’s likely to get you killed you are likely going to get killed sooner or later.




I agree with @the Jester that in this case the characters seem to be committing elaborate suicide. While I think it's possible for a GM to go past any semblance of fairness in the direction of killing the characters, I don't think that's happening here.


----------



## Numidius

prabe said:


> I can understand that, but if the player decided his character was going to act that way because the player was bored or because the player just was expecting a different kind of game, it's kinda an OOC problem, so solving it OOC is likely to be easier and more likely to work than solving it IC. My takeaway from the OP was that this was a player decision, not something inherent in the character.



That's reasonable, but since the OP said it is a campaign going on, even if the players acted out of boredom, that seems to me a general declaration of intent and a sort of specific plot twist. 
Not exactly something wrong per se. 

"To ruin the campaign", I don't think so, actually maybe revitalize it, if the two of them were already bored and the others might just wait to see what happens, without engaging that much. 

Consequences, yes, of course. Not as a punishment, tho, but as an opportunity for everyone, starting from the Gm showing concern and interest in those unfortunate exploits and will to build from there. 

I admit I have been there, done that, as a player in the past, but I had a PLAN! A glorious plan... The Gm thought otherwise.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Big Bucky said:


> @Snarf Zagyg now I want to do Blades in the Dark hack of The Wire. Omar comin’!




A man gotta have a code.



> As an aside, I wish we could get away from the idea that the GM kills the PCs. That’s not fair to put that responsibilty on one person. The GM presents interesting situations/problems/obstacles and describes how the world reacts to what the PCs do. If you do stuff that’s likely to get you killed you are likely going to get killed sooner or later.




Every game is different, but this is certainly true as far as I'm concerned. There is no real player empowerment if the DM is constantly intervening to save you from your own dumb mistakes; I get no joy from triumphing if I know that the DM is going to bail me out of my defeats.


----------



## Umbran

Numidius said:


> I'm not fond of OOC discussions. I prefer to resolve things IC.




I'm a, "mature adults talk to each other," kind of guy.  Resolving things IC is often a passive-aggressive route to misunderstanding and bad feelings all around at the table.  You don't resolve questions like, "What are you expecting in the game?" by in-game action.

In this case, I don't see a _reasonable_ expectation that laying hands on the person of the King was not going to end badly for the PCs, so I'm okay with holding them to their choices.  A bit of discussion as to why they made those choices is perhaps warranted, though.


----------



## jasper

Talk to them off board. Hang them on board. New pcs for the players.


----------



## Mallus

Retreater said:


> That night they were given several opportunities to escape the stocks, but the would-be assassin failed and the instigator said he would rather die than let this corrupt man stay in power.
> What's a DM to do? Let it play out how it would in reality (execution) or break verisimilitude and reward murder-hoboism and let them escape with a deus ex machina?



Sounds like the perfect time to introduce a group of rebels talented enough to pull off a daring daytime rescue but with several key leadership positions unfilled!

Not the end of a campaign, just an unforeseen plot-twist. Remember, it's not realism so much as verisimilitude to pulp adventure stories we're aiming for (usually).

I mean, if a hot-headed hero can't pull a shiv on a terrible king, why are we even playing?


----------



## iserith

I agree with others that this is largely an out-of-game issue that should be handled and decided upon by the group in order to get back on track.

How long did this scene go on for before the one dude started shouting at the ruler?


----------



## Numidius

Umbran said:


> I'm a, "mature adults talk to each other," kind of guy. Resolving things IC is often a passive-aggressive route to misunderstanding and bad feelings all around at the table. You don't resolve questions like, "What are you expecting in the game?" by in-game action.
> 
> In this case, I don't see a _reasonable_ expectation that laying hands on the person of the King was not going to end badly for the PCs, so I'm okay with holding them to their choices. A bit of discussion as to why they made those choices is perhaps warranted, though.



Sure. They infact already had a chat about it after the session, as @Retreater informed us in the opening post. 

I'd like to offer a point of view that goes beyond the initial aut-aut: killing them vs deus ex machina, involving everyone at the table to consider & engage the present in-game situation, in particular from the Gm, who has authority to refrain from instruct them OOC and also to be creative in the following fiction. 

I see a convenient correspondence between the temper of the player and the hypothetical feelings among a part of the subjects of the kingdom about the lunatic tyrant. 
So if a lesson is to be taught, let it be by the king to the masses via the Pcs and not the Gm to the players.

Show, don't tell.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Have the King recognize their desire for violence, and send them on a mission where they can use their skills to his benefit. Use the Gaes spell or other magical means to compel their cooperation.

It seems to me the issue isn’t really with the characters, as others have pointed out. Killing the PCs and replacing them may result in the same problems. 

So I’d say channel it.


----------



## Jaeger

TwoSix said:


> ... "It's time for a new character"!





jasper said:


> ... Hang them on board. New pcs for the players.




This!

Because: 




the Jester said:


> Actions have consequences. You established what those consequences would be, and two of the pcs spat in the eye of those potential consequences. *If they don't suffer those consequences, you will have undermined yourself thoroughly*-...






Big Bucky said:


> ...*Your job is not to keep the PCs alive. It’s to present a realistic and consistent world.* Do what you think would happen if this was real life.
> ...




Take it to them. Off with their heads!

Then take out new character sheets.

And if necessary emphasize that: _the campaign is not ruined._

If anything, they just gave you more plot hooks. And things could get really interesting if one of the new PC is related to one of the excecuted ones.


----------



## Blue

The personalities involved and why make a big difference to the primary goal of the game - everyone have fun.  And that's really going to determine how to resolve this to best fit the goal of the hobby.

Outside that, here's one way I can see it playing out.

Don't spend more time on the bored and the attacker except to have a public execution scene.  The other players can intervene if they wish to try to save them, but be clear to the two players to have new characters ready.

That said, the one who attempted to kill the king and is willing to accept the consequences gets some respect from me - he wasn't the one who caused the issue, but once it happened he attempted to save the party.  I would have the attempted coup be the catylist for a revolt that will grow over the next few levels, and give the player who attempted to kill the king the bennie with their new character that they can be (at their discretion) well connected with the leaders of the rebellion.

As a DM, I'd be thrilled to have something as dynamic as a PC-action inspired rebellion going on.

As a side note, if it wasn't such a think - attempted regicide against an unstable king known for harsh punishment against dissent, I would have just used this as an opprtunity to show that character failure just leads to a different branch of the story, and isn't a bad thing from the _player_ perspective of having fun, as much as it might not be a place the _character_ is looking to be.


----------



## aramis erak

Retreater said:


> For this affront, the ruler yelled for his guards to come and arrest that character. In response, another party member tried (and failed) to grapple the ruler and put a knife to his throat to take him as a hostage.
> The other two characters left the room and proclaimed their innocence. With some good roleplay (and great dice rolls) they were able to convince the ruler and his guards that they had no part of the attack and were allowed to leave.
> The two other characters (the would-be assassin and the instigator) were taken to the public stocks to await trial that could end in execution (or at the very least, expulsion from the land).



It sounds like the player had the idea to make the character do "suicide by cop"...


----------



## Retreater

To address some of the earlier questions....
The encounter with the crazed despot hadn't been going on for long (only a few minutes). There had been a string of roleplay heavy sessions leading up to it, however, with most of them having only a combat or two - so the boredom may have been setting in over a few weeks and this had been the tipping point. Still, I try to communicate to the players at the start of the campaign and check in after each session to make sure they're having fun. 
The hot-headed player who seemed to get bored with the encounter also happens to be a good friend I've gamed with for more than 20 years. It's not out of character for him to do something irrational like this, but this isn't a dungeon hack without consequences, something I've tried to instill in the group. The other player (would-be assassin) just went along with it to try to salvage a bad situation in the heat of the moment. 
I had put them in contact with revolutionaries in the town over the past couple sessions. The more extreme faction (who called for the removal of the ruler) had been blown off [strangely, by the hot-headed player] and the party had been unwilling to take sides. 
A lieutenant of the mad ruler even offered to return the weapons to the party and free them from the stockades under the promise that they leave town and never return. He said he would just tell the ruler he had killed them during an escape attempt, because even the lieutenant was tired of all the bloodshed. [And I feel like this was giving in too much as a DM.] Even this compromise was unacceptable to the hot-headed player.


----------



## cmad1977

Execute them. But then their images show up in pamphlets and their efforts are immortalized in song. A rebellion brews after the deaths of the two ‘heroic’ would be assassins.


----------



## billd91

I've executed PCs before. When we were playing Oriental Adventures, the wu jen character made a rash decision and murdered a retired emperor (father of the current one, who had abdicated to life in a monastery). He tried to hide it but was found out (and, in fact, committed murder again to try to cover up). He was executed by boiling him alive in oil. Of his traveling companions, the cook/ninja was murdered in a prison fight (really, assassinated), the monk died in prison, the samurai committed seppuku and thus saved his family honor from the stain of being associated, even tangentially, with someone who murdered an imperial patriarch.

My players were largely fine with it and recognized that mistakes had been made - by themselves - so the only disappointment they had was for a few ill-made choices of theirs.

So, yeah, execute the pair. It's what I would do. Don't have NPCs save them out of the blue. Any attempt to thwart the execution that doesn't come from the PCs seems a bit too deus ex machina to me. Sometimes you have to lie in the bed you make.


----------



## Umbran

Numidius said:


> Show, don't tell.




That is for fiction.  It is not suitable for working out the table agreement/social contract.  Statement that they'd gotten an apology for "ruining the campaign" does not indicate to me that they'd gotten to the reason why _the players_ did this, understood it fully, and knew how to proceed so that everyone is okay going forward.

Despite my quick answer above... I am coming to think even more that, whatever happens with the game plot, that there may be need for discussion among the people to make sure they don't end up in another problematic situation in the future.


----------



## Umbran

cmad1977 said:


> Execute them. But then their images show up in pamphlets and their efforts are immortalized in song. A rebellion brews after the deaths of the two ‘heroic’ would be assassins.




If, in fact, the whole thing is kind of the GM's fault ("We told you we hated this kind of scene, but you did it anyway," or somesuch) then yes.  If they did it because they were acting out over something else, acting in impatience without talking about it first, or otherwise being a jerk at the table... no.  You don't get rewarded for bad behavior.


----------



## Lanefan

As an anything-goes type of DM and somewhat-chaotic type of player I applaud the two who stirred the pot! 

But now they're gonna pay for it in-fiction, either with loss of heads or a forced-quest mission with no hope of profit or whatever; and that's fine too. Because while anything goes, usually somewhat-predictable consequences follow.

Ages ago I had a vaguely similar thing happen: the party - all of 'em! - decided to turn the planting of the beans from a Bag of Beans into a public show, and sold tickets etc.  Things went well until the last bean, which summoned a huge ancient Cloud Dragon into the main square of the city.  Many civilian deaths* and a King's-word-is-the-law trial later, the PC originator of the idea was hanged, interdict was laid against reviving any PCs killed by the Dragon, and the PC survivors were banished form the land and put into a forced-quest adventure.

* - and a near-miss for the Crown Prince, who had left the square just moments before...


----------



## Numidius

Umbran said:


> That is for fiction. It is not suitable for working out the table agreement/social contract. Statement that they'd gotten an apology for "ruining the campaign" does not indicate to me that they'd gotten to the reason why _the players_ did this, understood it fully, and knew how to proceed so that everyone is okay going forward.
> 
> Despite my quick answer above... I am coming to think even more that, whatever happens with the game plot, that there may be need for discussion among the people to make sure they don't end up in another problematic situation in the future.



Fiction. Yes. From the additional info @Retreater has now added as backstory to this point, looks like the players are pretty engaged with the fiction/story, especially the "problematic duo". 
I am actually more convinced that the situation should be dealed with in-game. Events have snowballed fast in the last session cause of the players, after some time of roleplaying in the setting. Maybe it is time for an avalanche by the Gm thru his Npc factions?


----------



## Numidius

Pace. To me this is a matter of pacing. The Gm slowly (apparently) built the situation; the players suddenly forced a change of pace. I like it. The rebellious factions should like it, and maybe the critical mass for a revolt in the kingdom (or whatever is in the Dm notes) is soon to be reached.


----------



## Sadras

atanakar said:


> They didn't kill the king or spill his blood. I wouldn't kill them. But I would send them at a forced labor work camp for x number of months.




A DM may do as you suggest, but just watched season 2 of _The Last Kingdom_ actually threatening the king = execution in most cases.


----------



## Scott Christian

Ovinomancer said:


> This is an out of game problem.  There's an issue with these two players being willing to engage in the game presented and this needs to be discussed out of context of the game rather than finding ways in game to address the situation.  Why did these two players think their actions were appropriate/necessary?  What was their play goal, here?  What did the other players think about this, and why did they not have a similar problem?  I think you need to have a table discussion before trying to figure out what happens in game.




This. 

Then, I would add, have things play out as they would. A gory execution (because the leader is harsh). Have them make new characters. This solves two things: One, you had a table discussion on how to adhere to a character's motives/themes/goals. Two, the players learn that the storyline doesn't always go their way. I'm never for random killing and harsh consequences, but I am for actions determining an outcome or consequence. 

This is a pretty common problem. Some DM's handle it better than others. I'm not blaming you, but if it happens again, then you need to know that that's what your players are going to do. Therefore, you need to make sure the situation doesn't arise. I didn't read the entire thread, but how old are the players in your group?


----------



## Scott Christian

As an aside and if the game permits, the players being executed could come back as a ghost that the original players control. Maybe as banshees or something more sinister. Maybe their bodies were thrown in the sewer and now they haunt as ghouls or something more creepy. Have them do a quick hour session where they are killing the king's patrol guards. This might show the players that sometimes the death of a character can be fun.


----------



## Scott Christian

Sorry for the three in a row. But situations like this are what 5e's personality, ideal, bond and flaw are all about. I've seen good DM's use them as guides in situations like the OP was experiencing. Asking the player, what is your flaw? Does it support these actions? What is your bond? Are you risking these bonds to complete this action? 

Not saying it should be used often, or as a litmus test for every action. But once or twice a campaign when things start to really run awry has shown me it can be useful. In fact, while playing I find them extremely useful. I refer to them all the time. I find it helps keep my character's compass more aligned with who they are than an alignment.


----------



## Helldritch

1) Talk to the players. Ask them why they did this. Pray that this has nothing to do with your normal DMing. If it is...
2) There must be a consequence. Beheading them is the only way to go. Justice with a king is swift and final.
3) Talk to the players. If you can't reach an understanding that benefits everyone, then you might have to find new players or you and the other two players will have to adjust your gaming to them.


----------



## Scott Christian

Helldritch said:


> 1) Talk to the players. Ask them why they did this. Pray that this has nothing to do with your normal DMing. If it is...
> 2) There must be a consequence. Beheading them is the only way to go. Justice with a king is swift and final.
> 3) Talk to the players. If you can't reach an understanding that benefits everyone, *then you might have to find new players or you and the other two players will have to adjust your gaming to them.*




or have one of them DM for awhile.


----------



## Helldritch

Scott Christian said:


> or have one of them DM for awhile.



I often forget this one. I've been DMing for 37 years now...


----------



## iserith

Retreater said:


> To address some of the earlier questions....
> The encounter with the crazed despot hadn't been going on for long (only a few minutes). There had been a string of roleplay heavy sessions leading up to it, however, with most of them having only a combat or two - so the boredom may have been setting in over a few weeks and this had been the tipping point. Still, I try to communicate to the players at the start of the campaign and check in after each session to make sure they're having fun.
> The hot-headed player who seemed to get bored with the encounter also happens to be a good friend I've gamed with for more than 20 years. It's not out of character for him to do something irrational like this, but this isn't a dungeon hack without consequences, something I've tried to instill in the group. The other player (would-be assassin) just went along with it to try to salvage a bad situation in the heat of the moment.
> I had put them in contact with revolutionaries in the town over the past couple sessions. The more extreme faction (who called for the removal of the ruler) had been blown off [strangely, by the hot-headed player] and the party had been unwilling to take sides.
> A lieutenant of the mad ruler even offered to return the weapons to the party and free them from the stockades under the promise that they leave town and never return. He said he would just tell the ruler he had killed them during an escape attempt, because even the lieutenant was tired of all the bloodshed. [And I feel like this was giving in too much as a DM.] Even this compromise was unacceptable to the hot-headed player.




While I don't care for the player's actions as you described them, I can at least understand the potential frustration that may have underpinned his decision. It's quite fashionable to have these "roleplay heavy sessions," but my experience with this sort of play is that too much is a bad thing, even if there is some kind of dramatic conflict as a payoff several sessions later. I think DMs and their groups greatly benefit from a variety of scenes across the various pillars _in each session_. This greatly diminishes the chances of one or more players getting bored and taking steps to insert some drama in a scene where that's not a good tactic. You can have just as much "heavy roleplaying" (whatever that means), but you spread it out a bit over the course of the campaign, interspersing these moments with higher stakes and conflict as appropriate.


----------



## Blue

Numidius said:


> Fiction. Yes. From the additional info @Retreater has now added as backstory to this point, looks like the players are pretty engaged with the fiction/story, especially the "problematic duo".




I don't see a "problematic duo".  I see one problem who started this, and then - one player who attempted to move forward with the situation and solve it for the party through escalation (note that with the history of this ruler the first player had already escalated this to his own death), and two other players who disavowed the party.

Basically, one player acting like it's a group, so they all stand together, and two players splitting the party (willing to let the original one die for his outburst and the second for trying to not let the first die).


----------



## Umbran

Blue said:


> Basically, one player acting like it's a group, so they all stand together...




And so this is one of the things you'd expect a group to talk about out of game - do we expect the team to hold together, even if you do something that other party members feel is rash, stupid, or whatever?  Do we expect a player to at least ask before trying something rash?  What is the group's tolerance for, shall we say, Leroy Jenkins solutions?  What's the group's expectation for the GM to be forgiving of such?


----------



## hawkeyefan

iserith said:


> While I don't care for the player's actions as you described them, I can at least understand the potential frustration that may have underpinned his decision. It's quite fashionable to have these "roleplay heavy sessions," but my experience with this sort of play is that too much is a bad thing, even if there is some kind of dramatic conflict as a payoff several sessions later. I think DMs and their groups greatly benefit from a variety of scenes across the various pillars _in each session_. This greatly diminishes the chances of one or more players getting bored and taking steps to insert some drama in a scene where that's not a good tactic. You can have just as much "heavy roleplaying" (whatever that means), but you spread it out a bit over the course of the campaign, interspersing these moments with higher stakes and conflict as appropriate.




Yeah, this is a big part of the issue, I expect. For D&D, a huge part of the game is combat. If you take that away, what’s left may not be enough of a game on its own. 

I know that non-combat can be engaging in D&D. I’ve played enough to know that under the right circumstances, you can go without combat for a while. At that point, it’s usually the fiction that’s engaging participants, and not mechanics. And for some players, if mechanics are not involved, their interest is not as strong. 

It sounds to me like what happened here is that they went a while without feeling like they were playing a game (multiple sessions, even) and so they tried to force it. 

I agree with those who’ve said a discussion is in order. But I don’t agree that the players were “problematic”. It’s a matter of mismatched expectations and/or play priorities. The DM’s just as responsible. They should likely discuss this and figure out some middle ground so that the RP heavy focus can remain, but the more combat focused players are still satisfied as well. 

I love role-playing. I’m all for it. But when I DM or play D&D, if there isnt conflict, if there isn’t some combat from time to time, then I wind up looking at my character sheet and asking what 95% of it is for.


----------



## MarkB

Umbran said:


> If you don't want to kill them outright - is the world such that there's a Cleric in service to the King that can cast Geas?  Don't make it a death sentence, make it a, "you _will_ directly serve my interests, publicly and dangerously, or die".



This strikes me as a terrible solution. If the player is already feeling constrained by the situation to the extent of getting disruptive during a negotiation, then placing literal, severe in-game constraints upon their character's range of actions is only going to exacerbate things. It may be a way to salvage the character, but I can't imagine the type of player who would get into this situation in the first place feeling anything but utter frustration and resentment at such a compulsion.


----------



## Umbran

MarkB said:


> This strikes me as a terrible solution.




Then don't use it.  



> If the player is already feeling...




Even the GM says boredom "may have" been setting in.  Not "was" but "may have."  The communication gap there is an issue, as I've noted in a couple posts since.  How about you push back on people saying that there's no need to fill that gap, hm?



> It may be a way to salvage the character, but I can't imagine the type of player who would get into this situation in the first place feeling anything but utter frustration and resentment at such a compulsion.




The thread asks about "realistic consequences".  Given the power available, these consequences seem very realistic.  You personally insult and lay hands on a king known to be unstable and severe in dealing with dissent?  You expect him to be _NICE_?

And yes, it saves the character.  Geas lasts a month.  They get sent to do some dirty work for the king - with travel time to and fro, it is easy to set that up to be one adventure.  If your player is incapable of putting up with one adventure being chosen for them... there's even more reason to have that out-of-game discussion.

Once that adventure is over, now the characters have a real reason to want the king's blood, rather than the weak reason of poor player communication and impulse control suggested here.

Or, you know, just cut of the PC's heads, have them roll up new characters, and move on.  That works too.


----------



## Helldritch

hawkeyefan said:


> Yeah, this is a big part of the issue, I expect. For D&D, a huge part of the game is combat. If you take that away, what’s left may not be enough of a game on its own.
> 
> I know that non-combat can be engaging in D&D. I’ve played enough to know that under the right circumstances, you can go without combat for a while. At that point, it’s usually the fiction that’s engaging participants, and not mechanics. And for some players, if mechanics are not involved, their interest is not as strong.
> 
> It sounds to me like what happened here is that they went a while without feeling like they were playing a game (multiple sessions, even) and so they tried to force it.
> 
> I agree with those who’ve said a discussion is in order. But I don’t agree that the players were “problematic”. It’s a matter of mismatched expectations and/or play priorities. The DM’s just as responsible. They should likely discuss this and figure out some middle ground so that the RP heavy focus can remain, but the more combat focused players are still satisfied as well.
> 
> I love role-playing. I’m all for it. But when I DM or play D&D, if there isnt conflict, if there isn’t some combat from time to time, then I wind up looking at my character sheet and asking what 95% of it is for.



DMing is a delicate balance between all the players expectations vs what is the story the DM is trying to build with the players. A good DM must learn what are his players' expectations and motivations for playing the game. I've had some group where a one short combat in a long 8 hours session was more than enough and others where combat was non stop. Both were to be DMed very differently but the end result was that everyone was having fun.

Now, there are players that can be disruptive to a game. They must learn that there are consequences to their actions. They either have to live with these consequences or simply stop playing with their current group (especially if they are the only ones with such a behavior). The compromise thing is not for the DM alone. Players must learn that what they like might not be the same thing as their co players.

In the case above, one player was bored to the extreme and decided on his own to take matters into his own hands. That was a disruptive behavior and the consequences of his actions should've been made clear from the start. If the player was aware but "went" with it anyway, then the character should die. If the player was not, then the player should have the option of "withdrawing" his actions as if nothing happened and without consequences. If he decides to press on, even with the knowledge of what is to come, then he should be screwed.


----------



## Numidius

Are these two captive PCs going to fight for their lives, or accept passively their fate?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Helldritch said:


> DMing is a delicate balance between all the players expectations vs what is the story the DM is trying to build with the players. A good DM must learn what are his players' expectations and motivations for playing the game. I've had some group where a one short combat in a long 8 hours session was more than enough and others where combat was non stop. Both were to be DMed very differently but the end result was that everyone was having fun.




Yeah, ultimately if everyone is enjoying themselves, then mission accomplished. What that means will vary from table to table and person to person, so any GM and group of players need to kind of figure out what works best for their specific game group.




Helldritch said:


> Now, there are players that can be disruptive to a game. They must learn that there are consequences to their actions. They either have to live with these consequences or simply stop playing with their current group (especially if they are the only ones with such a behavior). The compromise thing is not for the DM alone. Players must learn that what they like might not be the same thing as their co players.




I think compromise is definitely needed, and that both parties need to consider it. I think the question of consequences is a little trickier. I think that consequences for a player and for a character are different things. 

If a player is disruptive in some way, I don't think that's something that should be handled in game.....by punishing the character in some way (killing them, imprisoning them, taking away items, etc.). Such an action may not actually address the problem. You need to talk to the player about what issue the player has that caused the disruption. Otherwise, you're treating the symptom.

Likewise, if I as a player decide my character is going to try to kill the king, I should expect that there will be consequences for my character. I do agree that if you choose to have your character do something reckless, then be willing to have them face whatever the consequences may be.

I think some suggestions in this thread are advocating for punishing the character as a way of correcting the player, which I don't think is a great idea.



Helldritch said:


> In the case above, one player was bored to the extreme and decided on his own to take matters into his own hands. That was a disruptive behavior and the consequences of his actions should've been made clear from the start. If the player was aware but "went" with it anyway, then the character should die. If the player was not, then the player should have the option of "withdrawing" his actions as if nothing happened and without consequences. If he decides to press on, even with the knowledge of what is to come, then he should be screwed.




I don't know if it was disruptive behavior....or at least, if it was disruptive, I can see why it might be justified. A bored player is an unengaged one, and so the GM should try and re-engage them in some way. I spend a lot of time GMing, so when I get the chance to play, I'm a very patient player. I'm willing to let the GM do their thing, and hope that I'll be rewarded with some engaging play. I cut the GM a good deal of slack. But...I have my limits. 

Generally speaking, I'd address this in some other way. I might say to the DM "hey, when will we see some action?" or something like that. I play with close friends, so we can level with each other like that. Ideally, a table will have some means of having discussions like these, and so if a player is bored to the point they're about to have their character do something rash, they have some way of addressing it before is spills over into play.

The first step is to recognize there's a problem. It's not always easy to tell, but very often I think it's pretty obvious when one or more players are bored. If that's the case, then you have to do something about it. It may be something as drastic as reevaluating the entire campaign.....or it may just be as simple as have some bad guys show up and a fight breaks out. It really depends. I'd start with an easy solution.....some bad guys showing up and having a battle.....and only move on to more serious solutions if needed. 

All in all, I think that this campaign or playstyle isn't a great fit for this player. I don't know if killing his character will actually help anything. He'll make a new character.....and very likely be just as bored.


----------



## Dioltach

The PCs get hung up in metal cages outside the king's dining hall. The players roll up new characters, but every session for the next six months or so you give them a quick update on how their original characters are doing (spoiler: not well).

Then after six months, or whenever it is appropriate they either die and become martyrs for the rebellion, or they escape/are freed and start or join an underground rebellion. They don't become PCs again, and their personalities have changed by the time the party next encounter them: philosophical, bitter or vengeful towarss the king and/or their former party members.


----------



## Helldritch

hawkeyefan said:


> I think some suggestions in this thread are advocating for punishing the character as a way of correcting the player, which I don't think is a great idea.




And you are perfectly right. Discussion is the key. Now if the person does not want to adapt...



hawkeyefan said:


> I don't know if it was disruptive behavior....or at least, if it was disruptive, I can see why it might be justified. A bored player is an unengaged one, and so the GM should try and re-engage them in some way. I spend a lot of time GMing, so when I get the chance to play, I'm a very patient player. I'm willing to let the GM do their thing, and hope that I'll be rewarded with some engaging play. I cut the GM a good deal of slack. But...I have my limits.




This is what should be done above all else. But if this does not work...



hawkeyefan said:


> Generally speaking, I'd address this in some other way. I might say to the DM "hey, when will we see some action?" or something like that. *I play with close friends*, so we can level with each other like that. Ideally, a table will have some means of having discussions like these, and so if a player is bored to the point they're about to have their character do something rash, they have some way of addressing it before is spills over into play.



The bolded text is because that is not always the case. I have two groups one is composed of close friends and the other is composed of both friends/acquaintances and people I knew nothing about before meeting them. I have a lot of fun with both groups but the one composed of close friend is easier to DM because I know them so well. The other group is really fun. Simply because they will surprise me with ideas and ways of doing things that I would not expect from my other group because I know how my close friends would react but not the others. 

All this to say that sometimes, you will have to put your foot on the ground and clearly say what you expect at your table. Again, I can't stress enough that discussion should always be the preferred method.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Helldritch said:


> And you are perfectly right. Discussion is the key. Now if the person does not want to adapt...
> 
> 
> 
> This is what should be done above all else. But if this does not work...
> 
> 
> The bolded text is because that is not always the case. I have two groups one is composed of close friends and the other is composed of both friends/acquaintances and people I knew nothing about before meeting them. I have a lot of fun with both groups but the one composed of close friend is easier to DM because I know them so well. The other group is really fun. Simply because they will surprise me with ideas and ways of doing things that I would not expect from my other group because I know how my close friends would react but not the others.
> 
> All this to say that sometimes, you will have to put your foot on the ground and clearly say what you expect at your table. Again, I can't stress enough that discussion should always be the preferred method.




Yeah, absolutely. My point about me playing with good friends was to point out that it's easier in those circumstances than it might be in others (although I can also see how it may be harder for some people to deal with friends than with strangers), and that I think any group will need some ground rules to address this kind of stuff. 

I've only ever played in a few games that weren't with my regular gaming group, and luckily nothing like this ever came up, but I think if it had, I'd have spoken to the GM before letting it bubble up in the middle of a game.


----------



## Retreater

Scott Christian said:


> [snip]  I didn't read the entire thread, but how old are the players in your group?



30s-40s.


----------



## Retreater

So we had the session last night. We started with a brief recap to get everyone back on the right page where we left off. One of the players had missed the previous session and rejoined the two stand-offish characters who were watching the instigator and assassin in the stocks. The rejoining character was told that the party was going to take the lieutenant's offer and flee the town.
This was unacceptable to him, so he started throwing his most powerful magic at the two town guards while the villagers watched on in horror. The two stand-offish characters tried to talk him out of it while also trying to keep the guards from dying with healing magic and trying to thwart the escape attempts at their friends in the stocks. 
As the guards are being attacked, they blow their whistles, summoning reinforcements. Withing a few rounds, a dozen additional guards and the formerly friendly lieutenant arrive, and the lieutenant said that the party attacked his men, shed their blood, and his offer was off the table. The attacking sorcerer would be added to the stocks, and the two who tried to calm down the situation and healed his men should "just leave town." 
The three men in the stocks would face the immediate judgment of the lord, likely to be executed. He left to get the lord, along with a small contingency of the guards. 
I then paused the session. I told everyone to stop what was going on. I told them about the consequences. I asked them how they wanted to proceed. I wanted them to come to sort of agreement about what the party was going to do.
The two stand-offish characters decided to create a distraction to disperse a few more of the remaining guards and cast Fog Cloud to cover the escapes of those in the stocks - after a little lock-picking (with disadvantage). The party fled into the night, jumped the town wall. They are fugitives, likely never able to return to civilization and being hunted by the lord's men. They have lost many allies, they are hated by the townsfolk who saw them killing the town militia. 
After the session I sent out an email telling them to expect consequences for their actions, that their characters can't just say whatever they want without any response from NPCs. If they don't like this style of game (and with the level of roleplay and mystery), then we can just play a dungeoncrawl.


----------



## Numidius

A nice surprise: the fifth element of the party coming back to change the tide of events. 
A band of renegades. Cool.


----------



## Scott Christian

Retreater said:


> 30s-40s.




Oh. Okay. So I'm guessing they have played before? Been in a campaign? So they are more than mature enough to handle any action/consequence thrown their way.


----------



## Scott Christian

I am glad it worked out for your group. Your consequence seems harsher than the death of two characters.   

I would offer one piece of wisdom. If your party is going to just start killing innocent guards and threatening a king, and you as DM, are going to take issue with that (and there is nothing wrong with that depending on the initial campaign), then I would steer them clear of those situations.

In my experience, it is best to clear these things before the campaign even starts. One great DM I played with would just flat out ask it in the beginning of a year long campaign: "Do you wanna be the good guys or bad guys?" I have always asked a litany of questions, such as: how to handle skill challenges, how to handle character death, voiced actions vs talking *$&!, alignments, motives, and how you are going to deal with each other if the alignments and motives are at odds. 

Just my two copper.


----------



## Retreater

Scott Christian said:


> I am glad it worked out for your group. Your consequence seems harsher than the death of two characters.
> 
> I would offer one piece of wisdom. If your party is going to just start killing innocent guards and threatening a king, and you as DM, are going to take issue with that (and there is nothing wrong with that depending on the initial campaign), then I would steer them clear of those situations.
> 
> In my experience, it is best to clear these things before the campaign even starts. One great DM I played with would just flat out ask it in the beginning of a year long campaign: "Do you wanna be the good guys or bad guys?" I have always asked a litany of questions, such as: how to handle skill challenges, how to handle character death, voiced actions vs talking *$&!, alignments, motives, and how you are going to deal with each other if the alignments and motives are at odds.
> 
> Just my two copper.



That would normally be great advice, and I'd be much better about improvising, but we're playing online with Roll20 and a published adventure. If they go too far off the rails, there's simply nothing there. I could create my own stuff, but it takes a lot of extra time online. And I can't do it at the drop of a hat.


----------



## billd91

So the returning 5th character *made things worse?!?* You basically gave them an out and he pretty much threw it in your face in a fit of violence. Seriously, you should have just executed the idiots.


----------



## Umbran

Retreater said:


> After the session I sent out an email telling them to expect consequences for their actions, that their characters can't just say whatever they want without any response from NPCs. If they don't like this style of game (and with the level of roleplay and mystery), then we can just play a dungeoncrawl.




So, after this experience... 

I suggest next time, if you get a major play expectation issue, you _start_ with the stuff in that e-mail, rather than let it go on for yet another session and then end with it.


----------



## Lanefan

Umbran said:


> And so this is one of the things you'd expect a group to talk about out of game - do we expect the team to hold together, even if you do something that other party members feel is rash, stupid, or whatever?  Do we expect a player to at least ask before trying something rash?  What is the group's tolerance for, shall we say, Leroy Jenkins solutions?  What's the group's expectation for the GM to be forgiving of such?



Unless you're gaming with a bunch of complete strangers, this is far too formalized.

Just let it happen, for cryin' out loud, and let the chips fall where they may.

Having to ask before trying something rash rather defeats the point of doing something rash at all....


----------



## Lanefan

Blue said:


> I don't see a "problematic duo".  I see one problem who started this, and then - one player who attempted to move forward with the situation and solve it for the party through escalation (note that with the history of this ruler the first player had already escalated this to his own death), and two other players who disavowed the party.
> 
> Basically, one player acting like it's a group, so they all stand together, and two players splitting the party (willing to let the original one die for his outburst and the second for trying to not let the first die).



Meh - I don't see a problem at all.

In my experience this is pretty much just another night in the trenches, only this crew took on a bigger fish than usual.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> Likewise, if I as a player decide my character is going to try to kill the king, I should expect that there will be consequences for my character. I do agree that if you choose to have your character do something reckless, then be willing to have them face whatever the consequences may be.



Absolutely this! (says he the reckless who has played many a character straight into its grave)



> I think some suggestions in this thread are advocating for punishing the character as a way of correcting the player, which I don't think is a great idea.



Depends how seriously the player takes it all, I suppose.

Which is another variable to consider: some people (both as DMs and players) take the game way more seriously - in some cases too much so, IMO - than others.


----------



## Lanefan

Dioltach said:


> The PCs get hung up in metal cages outside the king's dining hall. The players roll up new characters, but every session for the next six months or so you give them a quick update on how their original characters are doing (spoiler: not well).



I like this!



> Then after six months, or whenever it is appropriate they either die and become martyrs for the rebellion, or they escape/are freed and start or join an underground rebellion. They don't become PCs again, and their personalities have changed by the time the party next encounter them: philosophical, bitter or vengeful towarss the king and/or their former party members.



But I don't like this.  Those characters still belong to their players*, thus if they're freed their players should be able to roleplay them into whatever comes next - and if it means going up against their old comrades, so be it.

* - unless (and only unless) those players have explicitly given permission to the DM to use them as NPCs


----------



## Helldritch

You should really ask yourself if these players fit with you and the other two players. It looks like three of your players are all about action pace adventure and you and the other two players are about RP. I know that the best bet would be a middle ground but sometimes it is not possible.

The only advice I can give is : "Talk with them!"
If you can't find a middle ground, then either change your gaming or find other players.


----------



## MGibster

Retreater said:


> What's a DM to do? Let it play out how it would in reality (execution) or break verisimilitude and reward murder-hoboism and let them escape with a deus ex machina? Meanwhile the players not involved in the coup attempt are being punished as the spotlight focuses on the two scoundrels - since their characters aren't wanting to be involved with the escape attempts.




I think we've all had similar problems in our campaigns at one point or another.  I was using Savage Worlds to run a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles campaign set in the future with an old Raphael as the PC's sensei.  While mutant animals didn't have full rights, they were afforded certain protections under the law and there was a political movement pushing for those rights that was gaining traction.  To make a long story short, the PCs ended up killing four New York City police officers.  I couldn't figure out how to keep the campaign on track after that and just ended it early.  

It's now my policy to pause the game whenever a PC decides to do something monumentally stupid that will likely derail the campaign and ask them if they wish to proceed.


----------



## prabe

MGibster said:


> It's now my policy to pause the game whenever a PC decides to do something monumentally stupid that will likely derail the campaign and ask them if they wish to proceed.




That's not an unreasonable policy, but I've played at tables that might go entire sessions without getting out of pause-stasis.


----------



## Umbran

Lanefan said:


> Unless you're gaming with a bunch of complete strangers, this is far too formalized.




I said topics like this ought to be discussed, I did not say what form that discussion would take, so I don't see how you can say it would be too formalized.



> Just let it happen, for cryin' out loud, and let the chips fall where they may.




So, I recognize that I am at a table (real or virtual, these days) with other real-world people.  Those people matter.  In general, I expect those people have their own lives, and those lives probably aren't all sweetness and light.  They are busy.  They have stress, and fears, and complications.  They are coming to a table with me to spend a few of their precious few hours of entertainment time.  We are each using each other to enhance those precious hours of entertainment time.

That means we have a few responsibilities toward each other.  And, "not trash out the whole game because I couldn't be bothered to make sure we were all on the same page before we started," is one of those responsibilities.

If "let the chips fall where they may" is fun for the other players, that's great.  If the way I deal with those chips leaves everyone else frustrated and like the whole thing was a waste of their time, that's the opposite of great.  

Mature adults can spend a half hour or an hour talking over expectations before starting a thing that's going to take dozens to hundreds of hours to complete.  



> Having to ask before trying something rash rather defeats the point of doing something rash at all....




And, if you are gaming with folks who might have a problem with it, don't you want to know beforehand, so that you can choose to either not join the group or not have a character for whom this would be a notable point?

In this case, "the point" may have been, "I cannot manage to use my words to state that this is boring the crap out of me, the player, and it has not been made clear to me that actions have consequences, so I will act out in-game."  Yes, if that's the point of the action, I do want that defeated before we get to the table.


----------



## MGibster

Lanefan said:


> Just let it happen, for cryin' out loud, and let the chips fall where they may.




I'm very much an "actions have consequences (good or bad)" DM, and I typically let the chips fall where they may.  But sometimes a player character's actions are disruptive to the point where it makes the game less enjoyable for the other players and the DM.  In those cases I think it's fair for the DM to put things on pause to speak with the player.


----------



## Helldritch

MGibster, I fully agree with you. Sometimes, a player gets too disruptive and needs to be reminded that his fun might not be the same as the others around the table. Talking is usually the way to go to solve most problems.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> Absolutely this! (says he the reckless who has played many a character straight into its grave)




Yes, I’m all for facing the consequences. I think the best advice about playing that I’ve read in recent years is to play your PC like you’d drive a stolen car. I think that players are generally far too cautious with their characters in play.

That being said, I absolutely think that anytime a PC is doing something reckless or dangerous, that it’s the GM’s job to make that clear beforehand. The player should know about the scope or scale of potential consequences even if they character may not be aware. 



Lanefan said:


> Depends how seriously the player takes it all, I suppose.
> 
> Which is another variable to consider: some people (both as DMs and players) take the game way more seriously - in some cases too much so, IMO - than others.




I suppose that’s true. Generally speaking, I think that any activity that people spend hours actively doing is generally one they’re invested in, and so I kind of proceed with the expectation that the game matters to them. 

Sure, at times people can go overboard or can overreact to something that happens in the game, but I find if I proceed with the expectation that they do in fact care about the game, such instances are fewer and also less surprising.


----------



## Umbran

hawkeyefan said:


> I think that players are generally far too cautious with their characters in play.




So, I'm afraid that's not a fully stated point.  

Players are far too cautious with their characters... _for what?_

They are far too cautious... to have fun?  ...to meet your personal tastes?  ...to justify the time they spend on play?  

Unless you complete the thought, we don't actually know what you are saying.


----------



## Fenris-77

Umbran said:


> So, I'm afraid that's not a fully stated point.
> 
> Players are far too cautious with their characters... _for what?_
> 
> They are far too cautious... to have fun?  ...to meet your personal tastes?  ...to justify the time they spend on play?
> 
> Unless you complete the thought, we don't actually know what you are saying.



Too cautious to drive their characters like they're a stolen car, I'd imagine. That suggestion usually indexes playing with gusto and taking the kind of risks appropriate to the genre conventions, whatever that looks like at the table. It means a lot in a specific campaign, but not so much in general, IMO, because it's relative to each campaign.


----------



## MGibster

Ralif Redhammer said:


> I've encountered players that sound a whole lot like this. For whatever reason, there's a certain type of player, that when presented with a figure of authority, cannot help but insult and abuse them. It's related to the Instigator player type - they like to do stuff just to make stuff happen, good or bad. But I think it's also a way at pushing at the boundaries of the game, like trying to find the limit to the map in a videogame. They want to see just how much they can push at the world without it breaking.




This is a particular pet peeve of mine and one I too often encounter.  I tend to place characters into the following broad categories.  

Instigators:  Players who just like to stir the pot and sow chaos.
The Anarchist:  Players with a pathological dislike of any character in a game with some authority over their PC (it's not like they can tell their boss to go #%%# himself in real life).  
The Unliable:  Players who think the role playing aspects don't really matter, believing the plot will plod along as planned regardless of their character's behavior (kind of like how it does in video games).


----------



## FrozenNorth

Retreater said:


> A lieutenant of the mad ruler even offered to return the weapons to the party and free them from the stockades under the promise that they leave town and never return. He said he would just tell the ruler he had killed them during an escape attempt, because even the lieutenant was tired of all the bloodshed. [And I feel like this was giving in too much as a DM.] Even this compromise was unacceptable to the hot-headed player.



What did the other player think about this?  I mean, I would  be pretty peeved if I’m about to be executed because I tried to save a player from his own recklessness, and when the chance to escape comes up, he’s like “I would rather die than compromise!”

As for the reckless player, looks like he wants to reroll a new character.  He may even want to reroll a character that fits the campaign better.


----------



## FrozenNorth

Sadras said:


> A DM may do as you suggest, but just watched season 2 of _The Last Kingdom_ actually threatening the king = execution in most cases.



I agree.  It breaks immersion when your power mad tyrant acts like a reasonable authority figure.


----------



## FrozenNorth

hawkeyefan said:


> Yes, I’m all for facing the consequences. I think the best advice about playing that I’ve read in recent years is to play your PC like you’d drive a stolen car. I think that players are generally far too cautious with their characters in play.



Wait, don’t you drive a stolen car super cautiously to avoid being pulled over by the police?


----------



## Retreater

FrozenNorth said:


> I agree.  It breaks immersion when your power mad tyrant acts like a reasonable authority figure.



True. And the mad tyrant would've put them to death. However it was his lieutenant who decided to show mercy to the party and let them escape (before they attacked the guards and threw the offer in his face).


----------



## jasper

FrozenNorth said:


> Wait, don’t you drive a stolen car super cautiously to avoid being pulled over by the police?



I can't be. Because it hit the siren when I pulled off.


----------



## CleverNickName

I think the OP did everything he could do to set the scene, describe the risks, and foreshadow the consequences.  This doesn't sound like it was some kind of "ha ha gotcha, you're dead" trap; the characters fully knew what they were dealing with and what to expect.  Instead of heeding the DM's warnings, they decided to call him on it, and that's that.  The characters must now face the consequences--the very well-defined, forewarned, and expected consequences--of their action.

Had this happened at my table, I would have broken the fourth wall when the character barked out "you're a terrible leader" or whatever.  I would have asked the player if that was truly the action they wanted to take, or if he's just frustrated with the amount of time the scene is taking and needs a break or something.  If he insists on the former, I would remind him that the person he is speaking to would have him imprisoned or worse for that offense, and his character is well-aware of this, etc.  Essentially give him an "are you sure?" button to click.  If he _still _insists on it, I'd ask one last question:  how do you want to deal with the imprisonment and/or death of your character...like, do you want to roll up a new character if this goes poorly?

Yes, it's immersion-breaking.  But I feel that pivotal points like this in the story kind of warrant it.


----------



## Scott Christian

Retreater said:


> That would normally be great advice, and I'd be much better about improvising, but we're playing online with Roll20 and a published adventure. If they go too far off the rails, there's simply nothing there. I could create my own stuff, but it takes a lot of extra time online. And I can't do it at the drop of a hat.




Ah. definitely understand that. The amount of time to do "from scratch" is crazy on Roll20. So without a doubt, redirect, redirect-redirect. 

I am glad you guys worked it out. That's nice to hear. Have fun and enjoy!


----------



## hawkeyefan

Umbran said:


> So, I'm afraid that's not a fully stated point.
> 
> Players are far too cautious with their characters... _for what?_
> 
> They are far too cautious... to have fun?  ...to meet your personal tastes?  ...to justify the time they spend on play?
> 
> Unless you complete the thought, we don't actually know what you are saying.




I thought that the context of that statement was pretty clear given the back and forth about reckless behavior and being willing to face consequences in play, and how I was advocating for playing your character like a stolen car. I prefer when players are less cautious in the actions that they declare for their characters.

But to elaborate....typically, RPG characters are in some way bold. They are often literally adventurers or heroes or criminals or some sort of other type of person who would often be bold and daring. They lead risky lives.

But very often they are not played so. 

This can be for many reasons, I've found. Primary among them is fear of losing the character to death or some similar fate that takes them away from the player. People get invested in their characters and they get attached, and they don't want to lose them. Related to this is whether the game mechanics support bold action or caution. Players also sometimes fear "going off the rails or some similar disruption of "the story". 

So I've found this to be a point of frustration in some games, as both a GM and a player.


----------



## Lanefan

MGibster said:


> It's now my policy to pause the game whenever a PC decides to do something monumentally stupid that will likely derail the campaign and ask them if they wish to proceed.



'Derailing' assumes it was ever on the rails in the first place... 

Also, what to some might appear as a derailing would to others simply be a new wrinkle.  Depends how flexible one is as DM.


----------



## Lanefan

Umbran said:


> I said topics like this ought to be discussed, I did not say what form that discussion would take, so I don't see how you can say it would be too formalized.
> 
> 
> 
> So, I recognize that I am at a table (real or virtual, these days) with other real-world people.  [...] They are busy.  They have stress, and fears, and complications.



All of which I expect to have been left at the door when arriving at the game.



> They are coming to a table with me to spend a few of their precious few hours of entertainment time.  We are each using each other to enhance those precious hours of entertainment time.



Absolutely!

And doing something rash or gonzo is oftentimes far more entertaining - or directly leads to far more entertainment - than not doing so.



> Mature adults can spend a half hour or an hour talking over expectations before starting a thing that's going to take dozens to hundreds of hours to complete.



Not for the first time, you speak as if the players are complete strangers before starting the campaign; which makes me ask whether gaming with strangers is your general background? (if yes, there's most of our differences right there; I generally only game with people I already know from out-of-game)



> And, if you are gaming with folks who might have a problem with it, don't you want to know beforehand, so that you can choose to either not join the group or not have a character for whom this would be a notable point?



If I'm gaming with folks who might have that much of a problem with rash in-game actions my first concern would be they're taking it all just a bit too seriously, thus my response would be to do whatever I could to get them to lighten up.



> In this case, "the point" may have been, "I cannot manage to use my words to state that this is boring the crap out of me, the player, and it has not been made clear to me that actions have consequences, so I will act out in-game."  Yes, if that's the point of the action, I do want that defeated before we get to the table.



One thing to keep in mind is that it might be just the character who's bored, not the player.  I've been in this situation many a time, where I-as-player am engaged enough with what's going on but if I'm playing a character with the attention span of a kitten I'm duty-bound to roleplay that; and so away we goooo.....


----------



## prabe

Lanefan said:


> Not for the first time, you speak as if the players are complete strangers before starting the campaign; which makes me ask whether gaming with strangers is your general background? (if yes, there's most of our differences right there; I generally only game with people I already know from out-of-game)




Not speaking for @Umbran here--he can speak for himself--but I just started gaming in stores, for the specific purpose of gaming with new and different people, stepping a little bit outside my comfort zone. I know some of the people at the table really well, others a good deal less so.



Lanefan said:


> One thing to keep in mind is that it might be just the character who's bored, not the player.  I've been in this situation many a time, where I-as-player am engaged enough with what's going on but if I'm playing a character with the attention span of a kitten I'm duty-bound to roleplay that; and so away we goooo.....




There are exceptions, I'm sure, but I generally find that if a player is telling me his character is bored, he's rationalizing his behavior.  I expect--and kinda prefer--that player goals and character goals align.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> Yes, I’m all for facing the consequences. I think the best advice about playing that I’ve read in recent years is to play your PC like you’d drive a stolen car. I think that players are generally far too cautious with their characters in play.
> 
> That being said, I absolutely think that anytime a PC is doing something reckless or dangerous, that it’s the GM’s job to make that clear beforehand. The player should know about the scope or scale of potential consequences even if they character may not be aware.



My preference is that player knowledge = character knowledge.

That said, if the setting background has been laid down clearly enough during the campaign, any consequences should be at least vaguely predictable as to severity and scope, if not specifics.



> I suppose that’s true. Generally speaking, I think that any activity that people spend hours actively doing is generally one they’re invested in, and so I kind of proceed with the expectation that the game matters to them.



I fine-tune this one step further: I proceed with the expectation that the game matters to them on the meta-level - as in, they want to come back next week - as opposed to whatever might happen within the fiction; interest in which predictably waxes and wanes for each player at different times depending on what's going on.



> Sure, at times people can go overboard or can overreact to something that happens in the game, but I find if I proceed with the expectation that they do in fact care about the game, such instances are fewer and also less surprising.



Yeah, if players over-react that's a problem.  If characters over-react, however, that's just part of the game.


----------



## Lanefan

MGibster said:


> This is a particular pet peeve of mine and one I too often encounter.  I tend to place characters into the following broad categories.
> 
> Instigators:  Players who just like to stir the pot and sow chaos.
> The Anarchist:  Players with a pathological dislike of any character in a game with some authority over their PC (it's not like they can tell their boss to go #%%# himself in real life).
> The Unliable:  Players who think the role playing aspects don't really matter, believing the plot will plod along as planned regardless of their character's behavior (kind of like how it does in video games).



I will proudly plead guilty to being, at times and depending on situation, each of the first two.  But I plead innocent of the third as defined, though I don't know what "Unliable" means.


----------



## Umbran

hawkeyefan said:


> ....I prefer when players are less cautious in the actions that they declare for their characters.
> 
> But to elaborate....typically, RPG characters are in some way bold. They are often literally adventurers or heroes or criminals or some sort of other type of person who would often be bold and daring. They lead risky lives.
> 
> But very often they are not played so.





Oh, so... because you don't think they are roleplaying their characters "correctly"? 

Firefighters walk into burning buildings.  They are bold.  They lead lives with a lot of risk. That risk is _extremely_ calculated.  A reckless firefighter is a dead firefighter... possibly several dead firefighters.  I see no reason why that doesn't hold for heroes, criminals, or anyone else in a high-risk profession. 

Now, if you opened the campaign with a Session Zero that said, "I want this to be a campaign with lots of poorly considered actions - high action, high drama, lots of consequences!" and the players then failed to meet that, then you might have a point.  Lacking that, though, the character's behavior is the _one thing_ the players get to control.  I don't think it is appropriate for the GM to say, "You aren't playing your character correctly, they should behave differently."


----------



## MGibster

Lanefan said:


> I will proudly plead guilty to being, at times and depending on situation, each of the first two.  But I plead innocent of the third as defined, though I don't know what "Unliable" means.




It just means they're not liable for any of their actions.  i.e.  They can say what they want with impunity because there are no meaningful consequences.


----------



## MGibster

The problems with discussons as it pertains to role playing games is that there are so many darned variables. What game your group is playing, the campaign itself, and even the participants can radically influence what's appropriate.  Actions which one might consider perfectly reasonable and prudent in _Delta Green_ might appear overly cautious in _Dungeons & Dragons_. Groups which are heavily invested in characterization and role playing are probably not going to be amused by a player who does random stuff just for the lulz.


----------



## Fenris-77

Umbran said:


> Now, if you opened the campaign with a Session Zero that said, "I want this to be a campaign with lots of poorly considered actions - high action, high drama, lots of consequences!" and the players then failed to meet that, then you might have a point.  Lacking that, though, the character's behavior is the _one thing_ the players get to control.  I don't think it is appropriate for the GM to say, "You aren't playing your character correctly, they should behave differently."



I think it's very possible to have high action and high drama without poorly considered actions. That's actually probably my favorite playstyle, so I'm actually quite sure it's possible. I would agree that session zero is the place to address genre expectations though, for sure. You can't say someone is doing it 'wrong' if they didn't agree to do it any particular way to begin with.


----------



## Umbran

Lanefan said:


> All of which I expect to have been left at the door when arriving at the game.




Ah.  I have found that to be, at best, a polite fiction.  We are not from the planet Vulcan, and our ability to push aside our emotional contexts is limited.  So, rather than deny, I accept, expect, and work with issues as they arise - which isn't all that often.

For example, I have one regular player who has PTSD.  It is clinically impossible for them to, "leave it at the door".



> And doing something rash or gonzo is oftentimes far more entertaining - or directly leads to far more entertainment - than not doing so.




I'm not arguing against doing rash and gonzo stuff.  I'm arguing for _being thoughtful of the people at the table_.  

You want to do something rash?  Before you declare the action, look around the table.  Will this make things suck for the other real-life people?  If the answer is, "Likely, yes," then maybe you shouldn't do it.  I think it is likely the players in the OP did not make this check.

It isn't hard.  It isn't even deep.  And, no, it isn't onerous or a major imposition.



> Not for the first time, you speak as if the players are complete strangers before starting the campaign; which makes me ask whether gaming with strangers is your general background? (if yes, there's most of our differences right there; I generally only game with people I already know from out-of-game)




I have run sometimes with folks I don't know, but that's not my usual.  My main groups tend to stick together for 5+ years.  My current has been together (with one person leaving, one passing away, and one addition) for... 14 years now, I think?  I check in with them at least once a year about how we are doing with table expectations, and what they want to see. I do a whole new Session Zero whenever we start a new campaign, because that typically includes some genre expectation changes.

Mature adults - they _talk to each other_.



> If I'm gaming with folks who might have that much of a problem with rash in-game actions my first concern would be they're taking it all just a bit too seriously, thus my response would be to do whatever I could to get them to lighten up.




Again, with the "you are too X."  Elsewhere it is "too cautious".  Here it is "too serious".  Again, I ask - too serious _for what_?  The "too serious" line has an implicit expectation on your part about how the game "should" be played.  It is not _a priori_ any better than anyone else's.

Rather than say, "they are wrong".  I say, "talk about it before you start."  That's all.  Rather than have an implicit expectation, have an explicit one.


----------



## MGibster

Umbran said:


> I'm not arguing against doing rash and gonzo stuff.  I'm arguing for _being thoughtful of the people at the table_.




In a nutshell, I think this is the salient point we should all be taking away from this discussion.  As with any other social activity, being considerate of others makes it more enjoyable.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Umbran said:


> Oh, so... because you don't think they are roleplaying their characters "correctly"?
> 
> Firefighters walk into burning buildings.  They are bold.  They lead lives with a lot of risk. That risk is _extremely_ calculated.  A reckless firefighter is a dead firefighter... possibly several dead firefighters.  I see no reason why that doesn't hold for heroes, criminals, or anyone else in a high-risk profession.
> 
> Now, if you opened the campaign with a Session Zero that said, "I want this to be a campaign with lots of poorly considered actions - high action, high drama, lots of consequences!" and the players then failed to meet that, then you might have a point.  Lacking that, though, the character's behavior is the _one thing_ the players get to control.  I don't think it is appropriate for the GM to say, "You aren't playing your character correctly, they should behave differently."




I'm not saying anyone is playing their characters incorrectly. I think I was clear that this is my view in general...and yes, it's my preference. And I never once advocated for the GM to tell people they're playing them incorrectly, so I don't know where you got that. If I think to myself "wow, Mike's really playing his barbarian conservatively" it doesn't mean I'm going to tell him so, or demand that he change how he's playing. 

Your fireman analogy doesn't work because there's no player controlling the fireman in real life, and the conflict I'm pointing out comes from character and player outlooks. If the player of a fireman character won't rush into the building because he's worried about his hit points.....then that would be more along the lines of what I'm talking about.

I like when the bold and risky lives of the characters is kind of matched by a bold and risky play style. I'll add the general caveat that "not at all times and not in all ways, and ultimately it's up to the player" if needed. And I absolutely do discuss this with my players. Not in the way you've proposed, but we're very open about discussing the approach to play, and the desires of play, and so on , for all involved.

You're taking a general comment about a preference for players to play boldly and accept the consequences as some kind of badwrongfun nonsense, and it's simply not the case.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> My preference is that player knowledge = character knowledge.
> 
> That said, if the setting background has been laid down clearly enough during the campaign, any consequences should be at least vaguely predictable as to severity and scope, if not specifics.




I've become more and more inclined to share at least an idea of possible consequences for any action. I generally feel that very often characters would be aware of such, and I don't mind when players know more than their characters. 

And as you say, if it has been made clear through the fiction, then what's the harm in stating it directly?



Lanefan said:


> I fine-tune this one step further: I proceed with the expectation that the game matters to them on the meta-level - as in, they want to come back next week - as opposed to whatever might happen within the fiction; interest in which predictably waxes and wanes for each player at different times depending on what's going on.
> 
> Yeah, if players over-react that's a problem.  If characters over-react, however, that's just part of the game.




Yeah, I'm not worried about characters overreacting. But you want to make sure everyone at the table is happy and engaged as much as possible. I think this is why I'd rather be open and direct about things so that there's less chance of someone misunderstanding or misinterpreting something.


----------



## Retreater

We didn't have a Session 0 per se. We had to move our in person game to virtual and started a new campaign to make that transition less jarring. (Plus giving me the ability to use a prepackaged module instead of trying to design a lot of custom, homebrewed campaign material to a VTT I was trying to learn.) 
In introducing the campaign I did explain to them the feel and flavor of it, the realism, the darker tone, the focus on roleplaying and investigation over kick in the door approaches. I presented other options of campaigns with different feels, and this is what they picked.


----------



## Darth Solo

Seems the GM is afraid of Player reaction.

Why? 

You told them before the game started what to expect. 

Crimes against nobility are normally punishable by death, to keep the citizenry in line.

Now, you're afraid of doing what makes the most sense. Why? Because your good friend is involved?

Execute them and tell your "friend" it was the more gentle option. Nobility take deadly offense deadly serious.

I don't know why slaying the offending PCs  could be problematic, unless "I let my friend do whatever without consequence."

You DO want realistic consequence, correct?

Talk to him/her/it after the game explaining how player agency works both ways.


----------



## Helldritch

Retreater said:


> We didn't have a Session 0 per se. We had to move our in person game to virtual and started a new campaign to make that transition less jarring. (Plus giving me the ability to use a prepackaged module instead of trying to design a lot of custom, homebrewed campaign material to a VTT I was trying to learn.)
> In introducing the campaign I did explain to them the feel and flavor of it, the realism, the darker tone, the focus on roleplaying and investigation over kick in the door approaches. I presented other options of campaigns with different feels, and this is what they picked.



Wow! They already knew what they were into and they did it anyways? And it was THEIR choice on top of that? Behead the characters, burn their remains as to make sure they'll never be raised and throw their ashes to the four wind. Erase all mention of their name from the records so that history forgets them. Good riddance I'd say.

Then, make them roll/prepare new characters with one level below the others. I don't know if these are your friends or not, but they were into a totally different ballgame than what I was understanding. It might not have been what they expected but they knew. This is a whole new playing field. I would have been ruthless to say the least.


----------



## Baron Opal II

I'm not sure that this opportunity has passed, but this seems ripe for an uprising. If these adventurers seem at all capable would not the Resistance come to their friends who escaped and plot to rescue those imprisoned? Or at least commiserate with them and introduce two of their own to the party?


----------



## Numidius

Retreater said:


> So we had the session last night. We started with a brief recap to get everyone back on the right page where we left off. One of the players had missed the previous session and rejoined the two stand-offish characters who were watching the instigator and assassin in the stocks. The rejoining character was told that the party was going to take the lieutenant's offer and flee the town.
> This was unacceptable to him, so he started throwing his most powerful magic at the two town guards while the villagers watched on in horror. The two stand-offish characters tried to talk him out of it while also trying to keep the guards from dying with healing magic and trying to thwart the escape attempts at their friends in the stocks.
> As the guards are being attacked, they blow their whistles, summoning reinforcements. Withing a few rounds, a dozen additional guards and the formerly friendly lieutenant arrive, and the lieutenant said that the party attacked his men, shed their blood, and his offer was off the table. The attacking sorcerer would be added to the stocks, and the two who tried to calm down the situation and healed his men should "just leave town."
> The three men in the stocks would face the immediate judgment of the lord, likely to be executed. He left to get the lord, along with a small contingency of the guards.
> I then paused the session. I told everyone to stop what was going on. I told them about the consequences. I asked them how they wanted to proceed. I wanted them to come to sort of agreement about what the party was going to do.
> The two stand-offish characters decided to create a distraction to disperse a few more of the remaining guards and cast Fog Cloud to cover the escapes of those in the stocks - after a little lock-picking (with disadvantage). The party fled into the night, jumped the town wall. They are fugitives, likely never able to return to civilization and being hunted by the lord's men. They have lost many allies, they are hated by the townsfolk who saw them killing the town militia.
> After the session I sent out an email telling them to expect consequences for their actions, that their characters can't just say whatever they want without any response from NPCs. If they don't like this style of game (and with the level of roleplay and mystery), then we can just play a dungeoncrawl.




Are you, as a group, going to continue to play the party of fugitives? 
The situation looks quite intriguing, after all, despite a very different premise. 

From this last report, I'm also curious how the "stand-off" characters feel about it; They helped their comrades, but at what price?


----------



## pemerton

I've read the OP and first page of responses. My first thought is that the way to work out consequences - "realistic" or otherwise - is via the action resolution mechanics. My second thought is that, if the PCs are in the stocks waiting to be executed for assaulting an evil ruler, that there might be rebels who will rescue them.


----------



## Imaculata

I would rule that the king would proceed with a public execution, and that he would want to make a spectacle out of it, to show his people what the consequences are when you make an attempt on his life. He will also personally oversee the execution. Possibly he'll make the execution into a grand spectacle, where the players are thrown into a pit with some horrible beasty.

However, in doing so the other players are provided with an excellent opportunity to free their companions, and possibly still kill the king. Perhaps with the aid of any npc allies they have. If the king is smart, he'll probably have one of his men keep an eye on the other players, to alert him if they try to free their friends.


----------



## pemerton

What is the job of the players in a RPG?

I think many - perhaps nearly everyone - would agree that it is not _only _to do what the GM would do, or what the GM thinks is a good or sensible idea. Which provokes the question - when is it _ever_ to do what the GM would do, or what the GM thinks is a good or sensible idea?

And - closely related to the idea of consequences - if the players do something that differs from what the GM would do, or from what the GM thinks is a good or sensible idea, what consequences should flow for their PCs?

In D&D, the consequences are not always the GM's choice. The GM might think it is not sensible for the PCs to attack the monster, but there are combat rules which are supposed to be used to work out the consequences of that. Maybe the players are cleverer, or get luckier, than the GM anticipated. Should making threats to tyrants be fundamentally different in its resolution framework?


----------



## Imaculata

The players made their choice. It is up to the DM to follow up on their action, and not to block or negate their choices. A couple of heroes being sentenced to death by an evil king, sounds like a perfect movie plot. Roll with it. Go big or go home.


----------



## Nagol

pemerton said:


> I've read the OP and first page of responses. My first thought is that the way to work out consequences - "realistic" or otherwise - is via the action resolution mechanics. My second thought is that, if the PCs are in the stocks waiting to be executed for assaulting an evil ruler, that there might be rebels who will rescue them.




Umm, stocks are guarded.  I _suppose_ rebels might storm the guards to rescue two unknowns who apparently attacked the king so poorly they are merely in the stocks.  It's probably _more_ likely they would be tormented/injured by loyalists and/or children.


----------



## nevin

A game without consequences for actions eventually breaks. 
1. Either execute them or let them escape and run away to another kingdom or become outlaws. 
2. Depending on the political situation. some noble might want the kings attackers to escape and make the king look bad. 
3. Or they may just be screwed and get beheaded. 
4. Or you can get creative and the High cleric casts GEAS on them and sends them on quest that no sane person would take.
5. If it's a game where King rules by divine right a God steps in and curses them (with a really nasty curse that won't stop them from being able to play) and  declares they will live as examples to the citizenry.
6. or an enemy Power Divine or infernal helps them escape.  Great time for a powerful Devil to offer a wish to drive his or her agenda. 

All kinds of options can give proper consequences.


----------



## MGibster

pemerton said:


> And - closely related to the idea of consequences - if the players do something that differs from what the GM would do, or from what the GM thinks is a good or sensible idea, what consequences should flow for their PCs?




I'm of the mind that consequences in game should logically follow whatever action the PCs took.  It doesn't really matter if the action is something the DM doesn't think is a good idea.  I find that PCs frequently make decisions I never considered, and a lot of time those actions lead to delightful or interesting results.  I'm fine with unexpected actions provided they make sense within the context of the game itself even if the results are negative. 

Example:  I was running Hell on Earth (post-apocalyptic nuclear wasteland), and the PCs were working for a city called Junk Town.  JT sent the PCs to recover the nuclear football of the former president as their city was soon to be at war with a mutant army from the west and a robot army to the east.  They succeeded in recovering the football but one of the PCs decided JT was just as bad as the mutants and robots and decided to destroy it.  There was a struggle that involved several grenades being thrown at the PCs but finally the saboteur was killed but in the process the football was damaged.  I decided right then and there that JT was going to lose the war because they really needed that nuclear device to win.  

The PC's actions were completely unexpected but made sense within the context of the game.  And the ramifications of his actions weren't realized until the very last session after the PCs broke off from the main battle to pursue their own mission, which they succeeded at, so the campaign really wasn't disrupted at all.  It just led to a bitter sweet ending.


----------



## Manbearcat

My thoughts after reading only the lead Post:

1) In certain games, it’s very explicit when you’re “punching above your weight.” Tier/Level transparency (and the affect on actions declared and the attendant severity of fallout on failure) is baked in. If you’re not playing in that type of game, unless there is clear conversation on the Tier relationship of PCs to obstacle or its extremely well-telegraphed, that can lead to play that is fraught with action:fallout issues.

2) Was there an explicit consensus on what the players were trying to accomplish in parley with the king?

3) Is there any reason to not go to the dice here to decide the King’s response in the moment? Humans are complex. Hard men don’t respond uniformly to challenge and have been dealt with in odd ways aplenty in both real life and in works of fiction authored by a single person. This is neither real life nor a fiction authored by a single person. It’s a game where 2/5 participants clearly didn’t feel like their actions were hostile to fun/interesting play. Perhaps they didn’t think it was hostile to thematcally coherent/compelling play in the moment as well. When it happened, they appear to have thought either it’s reasonable (in a “we’re playing a fantasy RPG with bold heroes who confront tyrannical dragons in their lairs”) to “confront the bully obstacle” or “back your buddy’s play.” 

Is there any reason to not go to the dice to see how the setting responds (maybe word gets out of the confrontation and it’s the spark to ignite the overgrown kindling of an uprising against tyrant?) or the king’s council responds (maybe there are usurpers in his midst that are sympathetic)?

4) If anyone at the table felt like there was clear malice involved, would this even be posted here (vs just dealing with it).


----------



## Lanefan

Nagol said:


> Umm, stocks are guarded.  I _suppose_ rebels might storm the guards to rescue two unknowns who apparently attacked the king so poorly they are merely in the stocks.  It's probably _more_ likely they would be tormented/injured by loyalists and/or children.



More likely the rebels use the distraction of the PCs' public trial and-or execution to launch a plot somewhere else e.g. while the King and most of his guards are at the town square the rebels bust into the now-lightly-guarded palace and cause some mayhem...


----------



## Deathmaster Banak

Execute them =  Game of Thrones series 1
Let them get away with it =  Game of Thrones series 8

I know which series I prefer


----------



## Imaculata

Lanefan said:


> More likely the rebels use the distraction of the PCs' public trial and-or execution to launch a plot somewhere else e.g. while the King and most of his guards are at the town square the rebels bust into the now-lightly-guarded palace and cause some mayhem...




I like this angle. The king is distracted, and a bigger plot unfolds, possibly allowing the players to escape due to plot convenience. As a DM I would always use an opportunity like this to move the plot in unexpected ways and surprise my players.


----------



## pemerton

MGibster said:


> I'm of the mind that consequences in game should logically follow whatever action the PCs took.



But D&D has never been free kriegspiel in the strictest sense. Combat is resolved via dice rolls, which means that unexpected and "illogical" things can happen.

The effect of this is also that combat in D&D often has a degree of uncertainty associated with it.

Is it important or necessary that other fields of endeavour by the characters have less uncertainty and/or more "logic"?


----------



## pemerton

Imaculata said:


> I like this angle. The king is distracted, and a bigger plot unfolds, possibly allowing the players to escape due to plot convenience. As a DM I would always use an opportunity like this to move the plot in unexpected ways and surprise my players.



Although I think there's something to be said, in RPGIng, for the PCs rather than NPCs being the centre of the action.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> Although I think there's something to be said, in RPGIng, for the PCs rather than NPCs being the centre of the action.




And how better in this case than as the guest of honor at an execution?


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> And how better in this case than as the guest of honor at an execution?




Are there any action resolution mechanics involved?

Conflict resolution mechanics (Clocks in AW or Blades, Conflict in Mouse Guard or Strike!, Skill Challenges in 4e) would be perfect to let actual play decide the question “are the PCs executed or is there a gripping, narrow escape (that leads to x knock-on conflict and downstream effects)?”

That sounds pretty awesome.

If one participant at the table just decides that the walk up to the gallows and the hanging isn’t a site of conflict but rather just a fait accompli (or perhaps the entire time from the arrest to the execution) then I’m left wondering why we don’t just elide all kinds of other potential sites of conflict  in the game and just have someone tell us what they think should/would happen?


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> Are there any action resolution mechanics involved?
> 
> Conflict resolution mechanics (Clocks in AW or Blades, Conflict in Mouse Guard or Strike!, Skill Challenges in 4e) would be perfect to let actual play decide the question “are the PCs executed or is there a gripping, narrow escape (that leads to x knock-on conflict and downstream effects)?”
> 
> That sounds pretty awesome.
> 
> If one participant at the table just decides that the walk up to the gallows and the hanging isn’t a site of conflict but rather just a fait accompli (or perhaps the entire time from the arrest to the execution) then I’m left wondering why we don’t just elide all kinds of other potential sites of conflict  in the game and just have someone tell us what they think should/would happen?




In this instance it would be the result of player decisions, character actions and the game's resolution mechanics. Probably something I'd have handled offscreen while the players generated new characters. Clearly that is not the way @Retreater ended up deciding to handle it, but he's the one GMing those players, and he very likely knows them better than I do. He definitely has more patience for them than I would at this point.


----------



## Fenris-77

Either kill them or make a_ hard_ move. I'd probably take the hard move route and offer them freedom at a steep price. Someone who wants to discomfit the king but also has a use for a couple of desperate men for a task that is almost certain to result in their horrible deaths. The offer is to break them out, but at the cost of undertaking the task offered them, most likely with some uncomfortable sureties to ensure their compliance. Possible a slow acting poison that needs regular doses of antidote, with a final dose to be delivered upon completion (tip of the cap to Scott Lynch there).


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> But D&D has never been free kriegspiel in the strictest sense. Combat is resolved via dice rolls, which means that unexpected and "illogical" things can happen.
> 
> The effect of this is also that combat in D&D often has a degree of uncertainty associated with it.



A degree of uncertainty, sure, but there's still a fair amount of overall predictability as to the end outcome most of the time; with certainty increasing the farther apart the two sides are in powers and capabilities.



> Is it important or necessary that other fields of endeavour by the characters have less uncertainty and/or more "logic"?



Social interaction - which, once the King's got them in the stocks, this pretty much is - follows the logic of roleplaying rather than dice; and depending on the characters (PC and NPC alike) and their personalities and-or motivaitons the outcomes can be just as unpredictable - or not.

Combat follows the logic of dice, if such a thing exists.


----------



## MGibster

pemerton said:


> But D&D has never been free kriegspiel in the strictest sense. Combat is resolved via dice rolls, which means that unexpected and "illogical" things can happen.




The unexpected happens from time-to-time, but I'd say the results of combat in D&D are typically logical in that they make sense within the context of the game.


----------



## Imaculata

prabe said:


> And how better in this case than as the guest of honor at an execution?




In D&D I like to think a lot in 'scenes' (like in an exciting action movie), where my goal is to always move the plot forward towards new exciting scenes. This 'plot' is always steered by the players, whose actions lead from scene to scene. The players being brought before a large crowd for a public execution is just such a scene. If the players actually get executed, that would be the end of the movie. But I tend to set the scene in such a way that a harrowing escape is always possible. It is however up to the players to make that happen, and when they do, we continue from there.

Would Captain Jack Sparrow actually be executed in front of a crowd of onlookers, or do his allies enact a daring escape plan to save him just in the nick of time? Well in D&D, that's all up to the players of course. But I would frame the scene in such a way that they can and probably will, or introduce an npc that is willing to help them out for a price.


----------



## Fenris-77

MGibster said:


> The unexpected happens from time-to-time, but I'd say the results of combat in D&D are typically logical in that they make sense within the context of the game.



There's that, and also the fact that the D&D combat mechanics narrow the field of actions enough that the outcome becomes more predictable. You can escape the gravity of those rules, but I suspect a lot of games don't. Roll to hit, roll to damage, monster or PC dies, rinse and repeat. That doesn't mean it's always bland or anything, that's not the case, but the system does return a pretty small field of possible outcomes.


----------



## Umbran

pemerton said:


> Is it important or necessary that other fields of endeavour by the characters have less uncertainty and/or more "logic"?




The socratic method is time-honored, but is also passive-aggressive, pedantic, and kind of condescending, I'm afraid. If you were Socrates, and people were explicitly coming to you to be taught, you might get away with asking questions to which you already have an answer.  Stepping into the middle of a conversation, acknowledging ignorance of much of the discussion, and then taking such a position?  You are setting yourself up for argument, rather than success.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> In this instance it would be the result of player decisions, character actions and the game's resolution mechanics. Probably something I'd have handled offscreen while the players generated new characters



I don't understand how something can _be handled offscreeen_ and yet also be _the result of the game's resolution mechanics_.



prabe said:


> He definitely has more patience for them than I would at this point.



My view is that if the GM can't handle the players declaring actions for their PCs, s/he's taken on the wrong job.


----------



## Fenris-77

pemerton said:


> My view is that if the GM can't handle the players declaring actions for their PCs, s/he's taken on the wrong job.



This seems a little disingenuous to me. Sure, it's broadly correct, but the idea that players, out of boredom, malice or sheer bloody-minded solipsism, can't take actions or exhibit behaviors that are damaging to the table and campaign isn't a flight of someone's imagination. Of course there are players like that, and of course they can derail a campaign.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I don't understand how something can _be handled offscreeen_ and yet also be _the result of the game's resolution mechanics_.




The PCs antagonized the Mad Tyrant. That was handled via the game's resolution mechanics. As a result, the PCs are executed. Do you the players to roleplay being drawn and quartered? That doesn't sound much like fun to me.



pemerton said:


> My view is that if the GM can't handle the players declaring actions for their PCs, s/he's taken on the wrong job.




There seems at least to be a difference in expectations at the table. There are players taking seriously that they need to tiptoe around the Mad Tyrant, expecting a game (or at least a mini-game) of negotiation; there is at least one other who is expecting a game where violence is the universal solvent, and out of boredom is blowing up the negotiation mini-game. While I agree that this sort of thing is better handled out-of-game, I don't have a lot of patience for one player walking all over another's fun; I have stopped gaming with good friends over actions like this and not regretted it for a moment.


----------



## chaochou

prabe said:


> The PCs antagonized the Mad Tyrant. That was handled via the game's resolution mechanics. As a result, the PCs are executed.




What resolution mechanics were involved in:
a) deciding the reaction of the king
b) resolving that the ensuing reaction resulted in execution

I dont see any mechanics at all, just GM whim.


----------



## Ovinomancer

I think there's been a bit elided in the OP, as repeated references to published adventures and other clues by the OP lead me to believe that this situation is part of Curse of Strahd and the Mad Tyrant is the Burgomaster of Vallaki.   Might offer some additional context as to why players may or may not engage in the actions presented.


----------



## billd91

chaochou said:


> What resolution mechanics were involved in:
> a) deciding the reaction of the king
> b) resolving that the ensuing reaction resulted in execution
> 
> I dont see any mechanics at all, just GM whim.




NPCs acting according to their known personality and reputation isn't exactly a whim. It's playing in character. 

There are no surprises here in the suggested outcome of putting the PCs to death. You're not going to find too many better cases highlighting players having the ability to make meaningful decisions based on what they can reasonably expect than right here.


----------



## prabe

chaochou said:


> What resolution mechanics were involved in:
> a) deciding the reaction of the king
> b) resolving that the ensuing reaction resulted in execution
> 
> I dont see any mechanics at all, just GM whim.




Must have missed this:



Retreater said:


> With some good roleplay (and great dice rolls) they were able to convince the ruler and his guards that they had no part of the attack and were allowed to leave.




Even leaving aside the idea of roleplay-as-mechanic, "and great dice rolls" implies there were mechanics involved, as well as roleplay and DM decisions.


----------



## Manbearcat

Ovinomancer said:


> I think there's been a bit elided in the OP, as repeated references to published adventures and other clues by the OP lead me to believe that this situation is part of Curse of Strahd and the Mad Tyrant is the Burgomaster of Vallaki.   Might offer some additional context as to why players may or may not engage in the actions presented.




That is definitely helpful.

So let’s assume that is the case here. This is an Adventure Path with hard-coded NPCs and plot.

Not knowing exactly what resolution mechanics were deployed here (were the Social Interaction mechanics in 5e used? What happened afterward to resolve the physical conflict when things went south? What about the imprisonment? What about the setting’s response to all of this?), in your mind, what are the moving parts of this and how could it be done at the table?

One final aside. I’ve seen degenerate action declarations (cited here and live) in social conflict where someone’s intent is not to play in good faith. I just don’t see how a player directly challenging a king (who is apparently a bad ruler) through their PC is anywhere near “bad faith” or “unreasonable.” We talk about inclusive diversity in so many different ways (as we should). Yet simultaneously I see a rejection of neurological diversity (where we are likely MOST diverse) in cases like this far too often with some sort of expectation of fealty to some (mis)perceived collective thought orthodoxy. It is very clear when someone has intended malice at a game table. Overwhelmingly though (as it looks to me in this case), I see an instance of neurological diversity. Someone has perceived something or had an impulse that seemed appropriate in the moment and they acted upon it.

And honestly, the “sorry I hurt your campaign” remark after social pressure/admonishment (or whatever took place) doesn’t move units with me the way the units were intended to be moved (by my reckoning if it at least).


----------



## hawkeyefan

I think that the call for mechanics to be used is in relation to the situation of them being imprisoned/detained; what happens next should be the result of the game mechanics. Essentially, if there is any doubt about the outcome, then let the dice decide in some way. 

The way I see this, killing these PCs out of hand doesn’t offer much benefit, does it? Teaching the players a lesson of some sort seems to be the case? 

Seems far more interesting stuff might come from following these events and continuing along this new path.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> Seems far more interesting stuff might come from following these events and continuing along this new path.




Than continuing down the rails of the published adventure? Very probably.

There may be some people here who are taking a stance along the lines of "teach the buggers a lesson," but I don't think that's my position. To my mind, the execution/s would be the logical result of actions taken. If your PCs are negotiating with Lord Vetinari, knowing his reputation, and someone mouths off and someone else tries to kill Vetinari or take him hostage, a slow death in the lightless depths of the scorpion pits is a result; no need to play that out; extending the obvious and inevitable feels to me like the GM bullying the players, more than a couple sentences ending with "make new characters." The OP described the player of the character that instigated the fight in the chambers as "bored." Crapping on the game out of player boredom is close enough to asshattery for me to call it that, and it's something I don't have any patience for.


----------



## iserith

Manbearcat said:


> were the Social Interaction mechanics in 5e used?




Pretty sure I'm the only one who uses those.


----------



## Nagol

prabe said:


> Than continuing down the rails of the published adventure? Very probably.
> 
> There may be some people here who are taking a stance along the lines of "teach the buggers a lesson," but I don't think that's my position. To my mind, the execution/s would be the logical result of actions taken. If your PCs are negotiating with Lord Vetinari, knowing his reputation, and someone mouths off and someone else tries to kill Vetinari or take him hostage, a slow death in the lightless depths of the scorpion pits is a result; no need to play that out; extending the obvious and inevitable feels to me like the GM bullying the players, more than a couple sentences ending with "make new characters." The OP described the player of the character that instigated the fight in the chambers as "bored." Crapping on the game out of player boredom is close enough to asshattery for me to call it that, and it's something I don't have any patience for.




Yeah, the situation looks very similar to
DM: This dungeon door is trapped. 
Player: I open it anyway. 
<mechanical resolution> 
DM: Make a new PC.

Compare:

DM: This man is powerful, controls the legal machinery, and is known to be unstable and severely punishing of dissent. 
PC1: I mouth off at him. 
PC2: I attack him to take him hostage! 
<Mechanical resolution>
DM: Make new PCs.

The stakes were known, actions were declared, so consequences should be reaped.  The DM can keep throwing softballs if he is intent on it, but isn't beholden to do so.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Nagol said:


> Yeah, the situation looks very similar to
> DM: This dungeon door is trapped.
> Player: I open it anyway.
> <mechanical resolution>
> DM: Make a new PC.
> 
> Compare:
> 
> DM: This man is powerful, controls the legal machinery, and is known to be unstable and severely punishing of dissent.
> PC1: I mouth off at him.
> PC2: I attack him to take him hostage!
> <Mechanical resolution>
> DM: Make new PCs.
> 
> The stakes were known, actions were declared, so consequences should be reaped.  The DM can keep throwing softballs if he is intent on it, but isn't beholden to do so.



I disagree.  There isn't a long roleplaying session dealing with the trapped door where you have to continuously show deference to the trap or it goes off, while there does appears to have been a long series of roleplaying sessions leading up to the confrontation with the [-]trapped door[/-] NPC.

There's also a structural difference between the physical challenge of the trapped door -- where, yes, a poor choice to ignore the trap may result in consequences -- and the social challenge of an untouchable but boorish and annoying NPC.  The former I could disarm, or chop down, and avoid the trap.  The latter I usually have to guess what the GM intends the result to be an submit to the NPC along the way.  Fundamentally, these kinds of NPCs require the players to submit to the NPC in many ways that a trapped door does not -- they're not the same kind of challenge nor do they present the same onus to the players.

Again, if I'm correct that the NPC in the OP is the Burgomaster of Vallaki, he's meant to be confronted at some point -- there are multiple plot points to do just that in the adventure.  The GM has a lot of leeway to make a decision as to how any such confrontation with the PCs pans out, and I think that the OP's problems are, in large part, due to choices the OP made in this confrontation to not have any flex in the adventure and not anticipate that the PCs, or at least some of the PCs, would be very displeased by how the Burgomaster has acted and try to thwart him, depending on what elements of the adventure the GM has already presented (or chosen to present, not everything in Vallaki is necessary).


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> Than continuing down the rails of the published adventure? Very probably.




It’s hard to say without knowing what adventure it is. If it’s Curse of Strahd as suggested, then I think confronting any of the different rulers among the various settlements of Barovia is well within the range of expected behaviors by the PCs. And none of these rulers hold sufficient power to make an attempt to kill/overthrow them a foregone conclusion one way or another. 



prabe said:


> There may be some people here who are taking a stance along the lines of "teach the buggers a lesson," but I don't think that's my position. To my mind, the execution/s would be the logical result of actions taken. If your PCs are negotiating with Lord Vetinari, knowing his reputation, and someone mouths off and someone else tries to kill Vetinari or take him hostage, a slow death in the lightless depths of the scorpion pits is a result; no need to play that out; extending the obvious and inevitable feels to me like the GM bullying the players, more than a couple sentences ending with "make new characters."




I suppose it’s possible. If I present a villain or other antagonist for the PCs to have to deal with, and they attempt to do so and fail, I usually see if there’s some other way for them to proceed.

I get your point about their execution being a logical outcome. But is it the only outcome? If so, why? If not, what else could happen? 



prabe said:


> The OP described the player of the character that instigated the fight in the chambers as "bored." Crapping on the game out of player boredom is close enough to asshattery for me to call it that, and it's something I don't have any patience for.




I don’t know if I’d agree with that. I mean, instead of blaming the player for being bored, we could just as easily blame the GM for running a boring game. Neither seems all that fair nor all that productive. 

This ruler sounds as if he’s meant to be an antagonist. So PCs going after an antagonist seems pretty predictable to me. Now, maybe a direct confrontation is not what the GM had in mind. And maybe the fiction had clearly established that a direct confrontation was a bad idea. So it seems a conflict between player and GM expectations.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> This ruler sounds as if he’s meant to be an antagonist. So PCs going after an antagonist seems pretty predictable to me. Now, maybe a direct confrontation is not what the GM had in mind. And maybe the fiction had clearly established that a direct confrontation was a bad idea. So it seems a conflict between player and GM expectations.




It seems to me to be a conflict between the players. The sense I get (and if I'm wrong I sincerely hope the OP corrects me) is that the players/characters made a decision as a party to try to solve whatever they were trying to solve by talking to the Mad Tyrant. There probably was some disagreement over whether this was the way they wanted to go about it, but one way or another the players/characters who wanted to talk won the right to decide--maybe the ones who wanted to fight gave up arguing. While (some of) the PCs were endeavoring to social-encounter their way toward their goal, the other PCs decided to sabotage that effort.

Now, published adventures can be ... completely unclear how to proceed if the PCs do something the writers didn't anticipate, especially the longer adventure-path-style. I've broken at least one by accident, and I may have had a hand in redirecting a party well off the track in another, and I'm pretty open about my dislike for the category both as a player and a GM. It sounds as though the OP has managed to keep things moving in the campaign, though I suspect getting them back to the published material (if that's the desire) will prove difficult.


----------



## Imaculata

hawkeyefan said:


> I get your point about their execution being a logical outcome. But is it the only outcome? If so, why? If not, what else could happen?




This seems like the right approach to me. The goal ultimately is to continue the adventure and have fun. Is simply executing the pc's fun? Kinda yes, but only to me, not to the players. And it stops the adventure dead in its tracks. 

I would always pursue an option that allows play to continue. This does not mean that the DM is required to throw the players a soft ball. Being on death row can be an exciting follow up, if you allow for a daring escape.

Luke Skywalker was sentenced to death by Jabba twice, and escaped heroically both times. That's what I think my players want out of an adventure.


----------



## Nagol

Ovinomancer said:


> I disagree.  There isn't a long roleplaying session dealing with the trapped door where you have to continuously show deference to the trap or it goes off, while there does appears to have been a long series of roleplaying sessions leading up to the confrontation with the [-]trapped door[/-] NPC.
> 
> There's also a structural difference between the physical challenge of the trapped door -- where, yes, a poor choice to ignore the trap may result in consequences -- and the social challenge of an untouchable but boorish and annoying NPC.  The former I could disarm, or chop down, and avoid the trap.  The latter I usually have to guess what the GM intends the result to be an submit to the NPC along the way.  Fundamentally, these kinds of NPCs require the players to submit to the NPC in many ways that a trapped door does not -- they're not the same kind of challenge nor do they present the same onus to the players.
> 
> Again, if I'm correct that the NPC in the OP is the Burgomaster of Vallaki, he's meant to be confronted at some point -- there are multiple plot points to do just that in the adventure.  The GM has a lot of leeway to make a decision as to how any such confrontation with the PCs pans out, and I think that the OP's problems are, in large part, due to choices the OP made in this confrontation to not have any flex in the adventure and not anticipate that the PCs, or at least some of the PCs, would be very displeased by how the Burgomaster has acted and try to thwart him, depending on what elements of the adventure the GM has already presented (or chosen to present, not everything in Vallaki is necessary).




It could take _hours_  to get to that door.  I've had groups take hours whilst in front of that door looking for alternative choices before someone decides to say 'Eff it! I open it anyway!"

No, you can chop down disarm, or avoid the NPC too -- using the correct tools.  If you have an axe, you can chop down the door.  If you have _Dominate_ you can chop down the NPC.  Tools exist; sometime groups have them and thus the options are greater.  Other times the group doesn't have them and using them isn't an option.

The PCs must submit to not going through the door unless they risk setting off the declared trap.  The PCs must submit to interacting with the PC politely or risk setting off the declared trap.  I see no difference at all.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> It seems to me to be a conflict between the players. The sense I get (and if I'm wrong I sincerely hope the OP corrects me) is that the players/characters made a decision as a party to try to solve whatever they were trying to solve by talking to the Mad Tyrant. There probably was some disagreement over whether this was the way they wanted to go about it, but one way or another the players/characters who wanted to talk won the right to decide--maybe the ones who wanted to fight gave up arguing. While (some of) the PCs were endeavoring to social-encounter their way toward their goal, the other PCs decided to sabotage that effort.




Maybe there is conflict between players....hard to say for sure. Certainly there is conflict in the actions/goals of the PCs. I don't know if the players mind that or not, though. I personally have no problem in a game when someone's character has a different idea than mine or otherwise disagree with them about something. 

I mean, when the fifth player returned in the next session, he seemed to side with the two who had attacked. Or at least, he wanted to free them and attacked the guards and ultimately the party escaped.

I think that if the players are that torn about what to do....if it's not just a disagreement between characters, but also players.....then they need to talk it out and decide how they want to proceed. Nothing about this situation seems beyond repair.



prabe said:


> Now, published adventures can be ... completely unclear how to proceed if the PCs do something the writers didn't anticipate, especially the longer adventure-path-style. I've broken at least one by accident, and I may have had a hand in redirecting a party well off the track in another, and I'm pretty open about my dislike for the category both as a player and a GM. It sounds as though the OP has managed to keep things moving in the campaign, though I suspect getting them back to the published material (if that's the desire) will prove difficult.




I don't know....it depends. We don't have details.....we don't know if this is a king or a mayor or something in between, we don't know how many guards the town has at its disposal, we don't know what the townspeople think of this situation, we don't know what additional factions may have a stake in things and whether they would be sympathetic to the PCs or just additional antagonists. We don't know what published adventure it is or what NPC it is, so knowing how far from what's expected this may be is hard to gauge.

If it's Vallaki in Curse of Strahd as has been suggested....then I don't think this is beyond what would be expected in the adventure, and I think there is plenty of information provided to support this approach, as well as many others.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Nagol said:


> It could take _hours_  to get to that door.  I've had groups take hours whilst in front of that door looking for alternative choices before someone decides to say 'Eff it! I open it anyway!"
> 
> No, you can chop down disarm, or avoid the NPC too -- using the correct tools.  If you have an axe, you can chop down the door.  If you have _Dominate_ you can chop down the NPC.  Tools exist; sometime groups have them and thus the options are greater.  Other times the group doesn't have them and using them isn't an option.
> 
> The PCs must submit to not going through the door unless they risk setting off the declared trap.  The PCs must submit to interacting with the PC politely or risk setting off the declared trap.  I see no difference at all.




Well, there's more, but let's start with "how many HP does the trap do when triggered?" compared to "how many HP does the NPC do when triggered?"


----------



## Retreater

Some of you are speculating about the specific published adventure, and your insights are correct. I didn't want to get too much into spoilers for that module, and I thought the situation could be explained without naming names.
I'm aware the adventure assumes a possible overthrow of the ruler. The group did not act in unison or decisively, did not make allies in the town, surrendered to the leader. So I was wondering what the leader's realistic actions should be. 
As it turns out, the group has all run away, being fugitives from justice. 
Last night's session (in another campaign), hot-headed friend was playing in a social encounter where he was in a dance competition with teenage girls. Because he was losing, he asked if it would be possible to grapple them and hit them to give himself an advantage in the otherwise friendly dance-off with a tribal people the party was trying to befriend as allies. 
I might have to do a talkin' to the guy.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Nagol said:


> It could take _hours_  to get to that door.  I've had groups take hours whilst in front of that door looking for alternative choices before someone decides to say 'Eff it! I open it anyway!"
> 
> No, you can chop down disarm, or avoid the NPC too -- using the correct tools.  If you have an axe, you can chop down the door.  If you have _Dominate_ you can chop down the NPC.  Tools exist; sometime groups have them and thus the options are greater.  Other times the group doesn't have them and using them isn't an option.
> 
> The PCs must submit to not going through the door unless they risk setting off the declared trap.  The PCs must submit to interacting with the PC politely or risk setting off the declared trap.  I see no difference at all.



Aside from looking askance at taking hours to deal with a trapped door (and where you just kill the character of the player that becomes frustrated with the hours long ordeal), it seems that you're making the case that the way to deal with a social encounter is the same as dealing with a trapped door.  That there is no difference, and they should be adjudicated in the same manner, yes?  

Normally, I'd be sympathetic to this argument, but I think you've taken the position that the GM-notes and fiat driven social adjudication is what should be shared rather than what would be my preference of letting action declarations have impacts in solving both problems rather than sticking to the GM's prepared idea of how things should work out.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Retreater said:


> Some of you are speculating about the specific published adventure, and your insights are correct. I didn't want to get too much into spoilers for that module, and I thought the situation could be explained without naming names.
> I'm aware the adventure assumes a possible overthrow of the ruler. The group did not act in unison or decisively, did not make allies in the town, surrendered to the leader. So I was wondering what the leader's realistic actions should be.
> As it turns out, the group has all run away, being fugitives from justice.
> Last night's session (in another campaign), hot-headed friend was playing in a social encounter where he was in a dance competition with teenage girls. Because he was losing, he asked if it would be possible to grapple them and hit them to give himself an advantage in the otherwise friendly dance-off with a tribal people the party was trying to befriend as allies.
> I might have to do a talkin' to the guy.



I think that NPC in question would be much more likely to engage in exile rather than execution.  For one, it's just as deadly to the average person.  For two, execution kinda goes against the 'everyone be happy or else' vibe he's pushing -- executions aren't happy, even if they are or else.  Third, I think you missed a huge opportunity to engage with some of the other factions in town, but, that's just me.  A well timed intercession by one of those factions might have been a great twist to the game and given loads of new room to explore.  Finally, Strahd himself might have made an appearance on behalf of the PCs, which would have been both epic and firmly made a point that if Strahd likes it, the PCs are probably in the wrong.

That said, I don't think your game's in too bad a place for this module, even if having made enemies in Vallaki certainly makes things a bit harder on the PCs (mostly by denying Vallaki as a base of operations).  And, you can always circle back to Vallaki later in the adventure and resolve some of these issues.  CoS is remarkably tolerant of changes for things like this -- don't be afraid to make it your own as you play through. 

As for your player that wants to engage in physical cheating during a dance party -- yes, you need to understand what he wants from the game because this doesn't seem like it aligns with what's being presented.  GMs thinking that it's their game is a cancer on our hobby -- it's everyone's game, just differently apportioned.  GMs need to make sure they're presenting a game the players want to play, and players have the duty to engage honestly.  This player seems to be confused about either what it is you're offering or what it is he wants from it.  And in the game is not where either of you are going to find that out.


----------



## Retreater

@Ovinomancer that's right. They shrugged off allying with Lady Fiona, even calling her to her face "the greater evil." The wereravens came to help to create a distraction and gave the rogue thieves tools to pick his locks - but they blew their chance with a sequence of terrible rolls and not working together. They blew off talking to the Vistani. The Lord of Vallaki was even going to let them go after the festival, but they kept making it worse, like killing guards, etc. 
Ireena and Rictavio even worked together to try to get them out.
Having Strahd appear was the last Deus ex Machina in my pocket, but I was hesitant to give the party an immunity card as it seemed there was no consequences and they didn't realistically fear anything in the campaign.


----------



## Mallus

prabe said:


> To my mind, the execution/s would be the logical result of actions taken.



Is it logical to decree the execution is a forgone conclusion? With no opportunity for escape and/or intervention? I think that's all most people here are asking for (and the way events played out in the OPs game).


----------



## billd91

Retreater said:


> @Ovinomancer that's right. They shrugged off allying with Lady Fiona, even calling her to her face "the greater evil." The wereravens came to help to create a distraction and gave the rogue thieves tools to pick his locks - but they blew their chance with a sequence of terrible rolls and not working together. They blew off talking to the Vistani. The Lord of Vallaki was even going to let them go after the festival, but they kept making it worse, like killing guards, etc.
> Ireena and Rictavio even worked together to try to get them out.
> Having Strahd appear was the last Deus ex Machina in my pocket, but I was hesitant to give the party an immunity card as it seemed there was no consequences and they didn't realistically fear anything in the campaign.




Your players don't happen to read Knights of the Dinner Table, do they? If so, do a couple of players view Bob, Dave, and Brian as positive role models?


----------



## billd91

Mallus said:


> Is it logical to decree the execution is a forgone conclusion? With no opportunity for escape and/or intervention? I think that's all most people here are asking for (and the way events played on in the OPs game).




I don't think anyone's precluding that, but as I posted above, that kind of initiative should come from the players, not a deus ex machina, to be in any way satisfying. And the players, aside from the returning 5th player who made the jam worse, seemed pretty divided on the subject and/or rejected every outside overture. So... whatcha gonna do? Sometimes the entirely reasonable outcome is death - create a new PC.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Retreater said:


> @Ovinomancer that's right. They shrugged off allying with Lady Fiona, even calling her to her face "the greater evil." The wereravens came to help to create a distraction and gave the rogue thieves tools to pick his locks - but they blew their chance with a sequence of terrible rolls and not working together. They blew off talking to the Vistani. The Lord of Vallaki was even going to let them go after the festival, but they kept making it worse, like killing guards, etc.
> Ireena and Rictavio even worked together to try to get them out.
> Having Strahd appear was the last Deus ex Machina in my pocket, but I was hesitant to give the party an immunity card as it seemed there was no consequences and they didn't realistically fear anything in the campaign.



Well, that's a much fuller picture.  Thanks.

Sadly, fearing the town of Vallaki is a bit of a paper tiger -- pretty quickly the party is quite capable of running roughshod over the entire town.  It's the usual murder hobo power curve problem.  Having players that are going to push that curve makes it very challenging, and it sounds like you have a few of those players.


----------



## Manbearcat

@Retreater

There could be a lot of different things happening here.

One thing that is very common to D&D is when players start to perceive the following game dynamics:

1) The combat mechanics are transparent, overwhelmingly player-facing, and yield a clear win condition.

2) Noncombat mechanics are the opposite; opaque and overwhelmingly GM-facing and don’t have a clear win:loss condition.

Due to this, players can feel like their decision-points become difficult or impossible to navigate if it’s not combat. Consequently, every obstacle becomes one to oppose by engaging the combat mechanics/turning things violent.

It’s sort of a “when all you have is a hammer, everything becomes a nail” problem.

Have s conversation about that with your players and see if that is what is in play and what you can do collectively to reconcile it.


----------



## prabe

Mallus said:


> Is it logical to decree the execution is a forgone conclusion? With no opportunity for escape and/or intervention? I think that's all most people here are asking for (and the way events played out in the OPs game).




It's plausible that I would do exactly that. They knew the Mad Tyrant was, well, a mad tyrant, and they attacked him (first verbally, then physically). Action, meet consequence.

It's clear there's a disconnect between some of the players, however, so addressing that (maybe with new characters) would be a better solution.


----------



## Lanefan

chaochou said:


> What resolution mechanics were involved in:
> a) deciding the reaction of the king
> b) resolving that the ensuing reaction resulted in execution
> 
> I dont see any mechanics at all, just GM whim.



Of course it's GM whim!

The King is an NPC.  NPCs are the GM's characters to play, just as PCs are those of the players, and thus the GM gets to - based on the King's personality and motivations - decide exactly what the King's reaction will be.  (I can't believe I actually have to spell this out!)

Amnd if the King's word is the law, which here seems to be the case, then if he says "Off with their heads!" then those PCs are about to get a bit shorter.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> Well, there's more, but let's start with "how many HP does the trap do when triggered?" compared to "how many HP does the NPC do when triggered?"



Assume that in either case the answer is "as many as required to kill the PC beyond easy revivability", for comparison's sake, and proceed.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> Of course it's GM whim!
> 
> The King is an NPC.  NPCs are the GM's characters to play, just as PCs are those of the players, and thus the GM gets to - based on the King's personality and motivations - decide exactly what the King's reaction will be.  (I can't believe I actually have to spell this out!)
> 
> Amnd if the King's word is the law, which here seems to be the case, then if he says "Off with their heads!" then those PCs are about to get a bit shorter.




The king's reaction is decided by the GM, sure....but the results of that action are typically left to dice, no? We don't know exactly what dice or mechanics were used to handle this situation. Nor do we know what opportunities may present themselves before the PCs are killed off by GM fiat, and how such opportunities would be handled mechanically.  

All this to say that having my PC die due to HP loss and failed death saves (or whatever relevant mechanic determines such) is one thing. It's observable, it's clear what the risks are, you know how you arrive at that end. And it doesn't come just because the GM says so.....there are rules that the GM is meant to follow that lead to this.

Having an NPC put PCs in stocks and then execute them out of hand is significantly less specific.



Lanefan said:


> Assume that in either case the answer is "as many as required to kill the PC beyond easy revivability", for comparison's sake, and proceed.




Why would we assume that? 

Based on your previous descriptions of play, I can't imagine that you or your players would simply accept such a fate for their PC if that's what happened in your game. I feel like you'd try to escape, or bargain, or whatever would make sense. And why not?


----------



## BookBarbarian

Sounds like things worked out ok. The Baron and his family are not long for the world anyway. You can only be a mad tyrant for so long before one or mroe powerful nobles or the people themselves successfully do something about it.

The PCs could probably come back to town after the revolution if they wanted.


----------



## aramis erak

pemerton said:


> I don't understand how something can _be handled offscreeen_ and yet also be _the result of the game's resolution mechanics_.



Most extreme case:
Pendragon: characters roll for children annually. The sex isn't portrayed in a scene, nor the childbirth. It's subsumed into the Winter Phase, which, in KAP, isn't actually written for scene gen., but to reduce the hundreds of hours of practice, the probably dozens of hours of sex, hundreds of hours of sewing, and such to a 5 to 15 minute non-scene.

Other examples, less extreme, include taxing your peasants in BECMI and Cyclopedia D&D, many people's social interaction in-game, especially pawn-stance as opposed to actor-stance. Yes, the character spent an hour yammering, but the resolution is one line by the player, and a die-roll.


----------



## Manbearcat

BookBarbarian said:


> Sounds like things worked out ok. The Baron and his family are not long for the world anyway. You can only be a mad tyrant for so long before one or mroe powerful nobles or the people themselves successfully do something about it.
> 
> The PCs could probably come back to town after the revolution if they wanted.




Why shouldn't the PCs ignite it?  Or lead it?  

Why should a revolution like this be handled offscreen, particularly when one of the PCs expressed interest in inciting or imposing a revolution!  If they're perceived (and I don't know if this is correct or not) as "bored", yet they expressed a dramatic need ("Lets Revolution!"), why not see where it goes rather than decrying it (for all of the reasons expressed here).  

Shutting it down (I don't have remotely enough information on precisely how the action resolution mechanics were deployed here...or if one or two of the players felt there was a block deployed by the GM to maintain the AP's plot trajectory) and handling it offscreen when its an area of interest is tantamount to a GM prioritizing their own version of "Setting Solitaire" over engaging with an expressed thematic interest during play!  That makes absolutely no sense to me.

Now, if its what I wrote earlier ("when all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail"), that is another area that needs to be addressed outside of play (however, it could very well be related if the players felt like the action resolution mechanics deployed to resolve the social conflict > physical conflict > escape conflict were opaque or deployed unintuitively).


----------



## BookBarbarian

Manbearcat said:


> Why shouldn't the PCs ignite it?  Or lead it?
> 
> Why should a revolution like this be handled offscreen, particularly when one of the PCs expressed interest in inciting or imposing a revolution!  If they're perceived (and I don't know if this is correct or not) as "bored", yet they expressed a dramatic need ("Lets Revolution!"), why not see where it goes rather than decrying it (for all of the reasons expressed here).
> 
> Shutting it down (I don't have remotely enough information on precisely how the action resolution mechanics were deployed here...or if one or two of the players felt there was a block deployed by the GM to maintain the AP's plot trajectory) and handling it offscreen when its an area of interest is tantamount to a GM prioritizing their own version of "Setting Solitaire" over engaging with an expressed thematic interest during play!  That makes absolutely no sense to me.
> 
> Now, if its what I wrote earlier ("when all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail"), that is another area that needs to be addressed outside of play (however, it could very well be related if the players felt like the action resolution mechanics deployed to resolve the social conflict > physical conflict > escape conflict were opaque or deployed unintuitively).



I've said nothing about what *should* happen. I'm saying the module is clear about what *does *happens if the PCs choose not to start the revolution. It happens anyway.

It's the OP that has said that the PCs did not ally with the noble that wanted to oust the baron, or really try to enlist any aid to do so. They still could if they wanted too at least until the next festival when the people finally get too tired of the baron's crap. Of course this is all subject to change according to the DM.


----------



## Manbearcat

BookBarbarian said:


> I've said nothing about what *should* happen. I'm saying the module is clear about what *does *happens if the PCs choose not to start the revolution. It happens anyway.
> 
> It's the OP that has said that the PCs did not ally with the noble that wanted to oust the baron, or really try to enlist any aid to do so. They still could if they wanted too at least until the next festival when the people finally get too tired of the baron's crap. Of course this is all subject to change according to the DM.




No I know you didn't say what *should *happen.

I was using your statement as a springboard because its the first I saw regarding what the module says about revolution while I've simultaneously seen a lot of conversation in the thread about the GM handling things offscreen (which, again, it seems odd to disparage a player's specifically expressed interest and declared action...even if its just a compulsive one...in inciting revolution if you're just going to handle it offscreen); playing "Setting Solitaire" if you're ignoring player's input and expressed interest.

Threads like this just reinforce how much I tend to disagree with the way the significant bulk of posters in this forum when it comes to casting/perceiving table behavior, authority over and responsibility to the shared fiction, various participant roles during play, and system.


----------



## BookBarbarian

Manbearcat said:


> No I know you didn't say what *should *happen.
> 
> I was using your statement as a springboard because its the first I saw regarding what the module says about revolution while I've simultaneously seen a lot of conversation in the thread about the GM handling things offscreen (which, again, it seems odd to disparage a player's specifically expressed interest and declared action...even if its just a compulsive one...in inciting revolution if you're just going to handle it offscreen); playing "Setting Solitaire" if you're ignoring player's input and expressed interest.
> 
> Threads like this just reinforce how much I tend to disagree with the way the significant bulk of posters in this forum when it comes to casting/perceiving table behavior, authority over and responsibility to the shared fiction, various participant roles during play, and system.



One the one hand, having the characters in the world pursue their own goals (IE freeing themselves form a mad tyrant) seems quite fine with me but I do agree that that it seems like a perfect way to unite those NPC desires with what aligns to, as far as I can tell, at least one players desire to topple the tyrant.

But yeah I think you are right. If it were me in the DM chair I probably would have had the Baron move up the next festival to the very next morning and have the player characters execution scheduled for that very event. There's going to be a riot there anyway. Might has well have the PCs in the middle of it.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> The king's reaction is decided by the GM, sure....but the results of that action are typically left to dice, no? We don't know exactly what dice or mechanics were used to handle this situation. Nor do we know what opportunities may present themselves before the PCs are killed off by GM fiat, and how such opportunities would be handled mechanically.
> 
> All this to say that having my PC die due to HP loss and failed death saves (or whatever relevant mechanic determines such) is one thing. It's observable, it's clear what the risks are, you know how you arrive at that end. And it doesn't come just because the GM says so.....there are rules that the GM is meant to follow that lead to this.
> 
> Having an NPC put PCs in stocks and then execute them out of hand is significantly less specific.



Less specific; and yet more specific at the same time.  By the sound of things the PCs in this case had all kinds of in-fiction reasons to believe that the King wasn't exactly either nice or forgiving, and that pissing him off (and trying to kill him certainly qualifies under that!) would very likely have dire and fatal consequences.

Which means there's a strong case to be made here than trying to kill him is in effect a glorified version of an educated save-or-die: you either succeed or you die trying or shortly thereafter.  All the other mechanics have already been either expended or bypassed.

I applaud those players who took this gamble.  It sucks that they lost.



> Why would we assume that?



Someone was comparing a save-or-die trap vs the save-or-die variant situation I note just above.  You asked how much h.p. damage it'd do, and my point is that "die" doesn't care about hit points. 



> Based on your previous descriptions of play, I can't imagine that you or your players would simply accept such a fate for their PC if that's what happened in your game. I feel like you'd try to escape, or bargain, or whatever would make sense. And why not?



Were I a player here and the King threw my PC in jail (as opposed to having my head lopped off there and then, which sounds like it's in play for this guy) then sure I'd try to escape - though unless I was playing a Thief-like character I'd assume my odds of success to be approaching zero; it would largely be an exercise in going through the motions.

More realistically, any escape attempt would have to be externally driven; my PC's fate would largely be in the hands of those PCs who were still at large.  So, I'd proactively get started on rolling up something new while they sort that out (or decide not to  ) and if my existing PC does get freed then whatever I roll up can be stowed away for later.


----------



## bloodtide

Keep in mind that realistic consequences are only what you as the DM say they are.  I have seen so many DMs get trapped in this box that they "must" only do ONE thing.  If a PC commits a crime they MUST be arrested and they MUST be put to death, and the DM will sit back like there is "nothing" they can do and the game is on AutoPlay or something.  

The truth is that a DM can have Anything happen.  For the jail one two kinda obvious ones are: a judge comes and lets them go to do some dirty work(maybe with a geas or whatever) or the sneaky jail "lets them escape" as part of some fiendish plot.

THAT being said, the best way to handle a disruptive player is to simply alter the game reality so they cannot effect the game.  Like the lord would just say "oh thank you for the complement, they do call me the Crazy Lord after all".

Once Upon  a Time: At the start of an adventure the group had dinner with the king.  Player Clyde of Thief Zim got boarded so he tried to loot the fine silverware at the kings table....only to find out it was all animated   So while the other players role played talking to the king, Zim was fighting for his life vs animated silverware.  All the while Clyde was trying to hide his thievery and the attacking silverware from everyone.  In the end Zim lost all but one hit point, and used up all his healing potions and did not even get a single peice of silverware.  But the other Pcs talked to the king, and Clyde was kept busy.


----------



## Fenris-77

Well, no, realistic consequences are not whatever the DM says they are. Unless what the DM says also happens to be realistic. 'Realistic' there means that the consequences flow naturally from the fiction in some way. You're right that it is _never_ just one answer though.


----------



## pemerton

MGibster said:


> The unexpected happens from time-to-time, but I'd say the results of combat in D&D are typically logical in that they make sense within the context of the game.



OK. But if you use action resolution to work out what happens to the characters who insult the king the same thing will be true: you'll get something that makes sense in the context of the game.


----------



## MGibster

pemerton said:


> OK. But if you use action resolution to work out what happens to the characters who insult the king the same thing will be true: you'll get something that makes sense in the context of the game.




I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow what you mean.  What action resolution mechanics are you referring to here?


----------



## pemerton

aramis erak said:


> Most extreme case:
> Pendragon: characters roll for children annually. The sex isn't portrayed in a scene, nor the childbirth. It's subsumed into the Winter Phase, which, in KAP, isn't actually written for scene gen., but to reduce the hundreds of hours of practice, the probably dozens of hours of sex, hundreds of hours of sewing, and such to a 5 to 15 minute non-scene.



I've used those Pendragon rules. It's not offscreen. The players are there, making rolls, finding out what happens to their families.

For current purposes it's functionally the same as adjudicating a Resources cycel in BW.

The time is truncated compared to (say) D&D combat, but it's not offscreeen ie the GM simply telling you afterwards what happened to your PC.


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> the idea that players, out of boredom, malice or sheer bloody-minded solipsism, can't take actions or exhibit behaviors that are damaging to the table and campaign isn't a flight of someone's imagination. Of course there are players like that, and of course they can derail a campaign.



I think the number of people who turn up to chess clubs so they can flip over the table part-way through a game is pretty small.

If RPGIng has a significantly larger number of such participants, that would be a worry. But I don't see anything in the OP to suggest that that is what is happening here.



prabe said:


> There seems at least to be a difference in expectations at the table. There are players taking seriously that they need to tiptoe around the Mad Tyrant, expecting a game (or at least a mini-game) of negotiation; there is at least one other who is expecting a game where violence is the universal solvent, and out of boredom is blowing up the negotiation mini-game.



If A is bored by B's play, and therefore takes steps to make things interesting, without knowing more I have to treat it as an open question whether it's the proactive A or the boring B who is "in the wrong". But in any event that's not what I saw in the OP: a player, presuably playing his PC is frustrated by the Mad Tyrant and verbalises that frustration, then the GM narrates more stuff which includes an escalation to violence, and then another player has his PC respond in kind:

{A PC] yell[ed] out something to the effect of "you're crazy and don't deserve leadership here." For this affront, the ruler yelled for his guards to come and arrest that character. In response, another party member tried (and failed) to grapple the ruler and put a knife to his throat​
That's the GM, not any player, who treated violence as the universal solvent.



prabe said:


> The PCs antagonized the Mad Tyrant. That was handled via the game's resolution mechanics. As a result, the PCs are executed.





prabe said:


> They knew the Mad Tyrant was, well, a mad tyrant, and they attacked him (first verbally, then physically). Action, meet consequence.



First, as with @chaochou I'm curious about what the resolution method is that was used to make the move from _PC yells out_ to _Mad Tyrant takes it badly_ to _Mad Tyrant calls for guards _to _guards arrive and follow his order to arrest PC_. At every point I can see a different possibility: the Mad Tyrant laughs off the insult; the Mad Tyrant personally challenges the affronting PC to a duel of honour; the guards are all drunk and don't come when called; the guard captain agrees with the PC that the Mad Tyrant doesn't deserve to rule, and seeing now a chance to strike against the tyrant takes up that chance. And I came up with those possibilities in the time it took me to type them up.

Second, the Mad Tyrant isn't a natural phenomenon. It's an element of the fiction in a RPG, presumably intended to serve some purpose for RPGing. What's that purpose? To create a puzzle for the players, where if they don't guess the right thing their PCs die? (This is @Nagol's analogy to the trapped door.) To allow the GM to tell the players what their PCs should do on pain of dying? A chance for the players to show off their ability to follow the GM's lead? Something else?


----------



## pemerton

MGibster said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow what you mean.  What action resolution mechanics are you referring to here?



Whichever ones are available. In D&D that might be a reaction roll table - first to see how the tyrant responds to the insult, then (if that is adverse) to see if the guards answer the call, then (if they do) to see how the guards respond to the situation of the tyrant being under attack.


----------



## Umbran

Ovinomancer said:


> I disagree.  There isn't a long roleplaying session dealing with the trapped door where you have to continuously show deference to the trap or it goes off...




True story...

In a campaign I joined for its latter half, upon introduction of my character, I was told about a previous exploit of one of the characters, to explain their approach to the Universe to me.  They'd been going through a wizard's lair, and had been opening doors - three door handles in a row were trapped to explode with fire.  The PC reached for the handle of the fourth door, and one of the PCs cried at them to stop.

"Why?" the PC said, "It isn't like they can _ALL_ be tra-- *BOOM!*"


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> If A is bored by B's play, and therefore takes steps to make things interesting, without knowing more I have to treat it as an open question whether it's the proactive A or the boring B who is "in the wrong". But in any event that's not what I saw in the OP: a player, presuably playing his PC is frustrated by the Mad Tyrant and verbalises that frustration, then the GM narrates more stuff which includes an escalation to violence, and then another player has his PC respond in kind:
> 
> {A PC] yell[ed] out something to the effect of "you're crazy and don't deserve leadership here." For this affront, the ruler yelled for his guards to come and arrest that character. In response, another party member tried (and failed) to grapple the ruler and put a knife to his throat​
> That's the GM, not any player, who treated violence as the universal solvent.
> 
> 
> First, as with @chaochou I'm curious about what the resolution method is that was used to make the move from _PC yells out_ to _Mad Tyrant takes it badly_ to _Mad Tyrant calls for guards _to _guards arrive and follow his order to arrest PC_. At every point I can see a different possibility: the Mad Tyrant laughs off the insult; the Mad Tyrant personally challenges the affronting PC to a duel of honour; the guards are all drunk and don't come when called; the guard captain agrees with the PC that the Mad Tyrant doesn't deserve to rule, and seeing now a chance to strike against the tyrant takes up that chance. And I came up with those possibilities in the time it took me to type them up.
> 
> Second, the Mad Tyrant isn't a natural phenomenon. It's an element of the fiction in a RPG, presumably intended to serve some purpose for RPGing. What's that purpose? To create a puzzle for the players, where if they don't guess the right thing their PCs die? (This is @Nagol's analogy to the trapped door.) To allow the GM to tell the players what their PCs should do on pain of dying? A chance for the players to show off their ability to follow the GM's lead? Something else?




Huh, chaochou is complaining about the whim of the DM but apparently you'd rather submit to the whim of the dice? I dunno - which is more predictable to the players giving them a chance to make meaningful choices? Playing the mad tyrant according to his well-known personality quirks of being thin-skinned and arresting malcontents or rolling against a list that might make him play completely against personality or include things not at all causally related to the players' decisions like guards being drunk? How are the PCs going to guess anything rational if that's the alternative.

And no, having the guards arrest an insolent PC isn't the start of violence in this scenario. The PC could have gone along quietly and plotted a daring escape, but like a lot of players do, they overreact when faced with their PCs losing any sense of their physical freedom (even temporarily) and whip their weapons out, escalating the situation further like they were in a Knights of the Dinner Table story.


----------



## Bohandas

This sounds like a good opportunity for a prison break adventure.

Just because someone's sentenced to death doesn't necessarily mean they die.


----------



## Hriston

MGibster said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow what you mean.  What action resolution mechanics are you referring to here?





pemerton said:


> Whichever ones are available. In D&D that might be a reaction roll table - first to see how the tyrant responds to the insult, then (if that is adverse) to see if the guards answer the call, then (if they do) to see how the guards respond to the situation of the tyrant being under attack.



Or presumably, an ability check to influence any one of those NPCs.


----------



## chaochou

billd91 said:


> Huh, chaochou is complaining about the whim of the DM but apparently you'd rather submit to the whim of the dice?




Dice don‘t have whims.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I think the number of people who turn up to chess clubs so they can flip over the table part-way through a game is pretty small.
> 
> If RPGIng has a significantly larger number of such participants, that would be a worry. But I don't see anything in the OP to suggest that that is what is happening here.
> 
> If A is bored by B's play, and therefore takes steps to make things interesting, without knowing more I have to treat it as an open question whether it's the proactive A or the boring B who is "in the wrong". But in any event that's not what I saw in the OP: a player, presuably playing his PC is frustrated by the Mad Tyrant and verbalises that frustration, then the GM narrates more stuff which includes an escalation to violence, and then another player has his PC respond in kind:
> 
> {A PC] yell[ed] out something to the effect of "you're crazy and don't deserve leadership here." For this affront, the ruler yelled for his guards to come and arrest that character. In response, another party member tried (and failed) to grapple the ruler and put a knife to his throat​
> That's the GM, not any player, who treated violence as the universal solvent.




Nice job with the partial quotation, there.



Retreater said:


> The party got a private audience with the ruler and things were moving friendly enough, when a player (probably bored with the negotiations and playing the "but I have a low Charisma card") decided to trump the party's hand and yell out something to the effect of "you're crazy and don't deserve leadership here."




Do you see where the OP says the player is "probably bored"? (This is a player the OP says later is behaving similarly in another campaign, so ... probably not the character.)

As to who instigated the violence:



Retreater said:


> For this affront, the ruler yelled for his guards to come and arrest that character. In response, another party member tried (and failed) to grapple the ruler and put a knife to his throat to take him as a hostage.




The Mad Tyrant is behaving in character; it's a second PC who instigates the violence.



pemerton said:


> First, as with @chaochou I'm curious about what the resolution method is that was used to make the move from _PC yells out_ to _Mad Tyrant takes it badly_ to _Mad Tyrant calls for guards _to _guards arrive and follow his order to arrest PC_. At every point I can see a different possibility: the Mad Tyrant laughs off the insult; the Mad Tyrant personally challenges the affronting PC to a duel of honour; the guards are all drunk and don't come when called; the guard captain agrees with the PC that the Mad Tyrant doesn't deserve to rule, and seeing now a chance to strike against the tyrant takes up that chance. And I came up with those possibilities in the time it took me to type them up.




And none of those may be in character for the Mad Tyrant--who was described as not tolerating dissent. Certainly "laughing it off" is pretty much the opposite of that. And drunk guards? Might as well have a divine figure on a ladder come own to interrupt the execution.



pemerton said:


> Second, the Mad Tyrant isn't a natural phenomenon. It's an element of the fiction in a RPG, presumably intended to serve some purpose for RPGing. What's that purpose? To create a puzzle for the players, where if they don't guess the right thing their PCs die? (This is @Nagol's analogy to the trapped door.) To allow the GM to tell the players what their PCs should do on pain of dying? A chance for the players to show off their ability to follow the GM's lead? Something else?




The party sought out this audience. It doesn't sound from the OP's description of play that the plan going in was to try to assassinate the Mad Tyrant. This isn't "I failed a check and the trap blew up in my face." This isn't "I couldn't figure out the puzzle the GM put before me." This is "I pissed on an electric light socket."


----------



## billd91

chaochou said:


> Dice don‘t have whims.




Would you prefer caprice? Does the semantic difference really matter?


----------



## prabe

chaochou said:


> Dice don‘t have whims.




Missing the metaphor, I presume. Apparently you'd rather have the events play out in some randomly-determined way that might or might not be coherent with prior events and descriptions.


----------



## Fanaelialae

If the DM must roll to determine how the NPCs react, does that mean that players must do so as well?

Does my bard need to roll to see if he's in the mood to flirt with the barmaid? Should the fighter roll to see if he feels like stepping between the wizard and the ogre?

That sort of thing works for a game like Pendragon (within its own context), but is quite atypical for D&D. The players role play their characters and the DM role plays the NPCs. I've, on occasion, rolled for a reaction when it was unclear to me how an NPC might react, but I don't really think it was necessary in this case given what we know of the Mad Tyrant.


----------



## MGibster

pemerton said:


> Whichever ones are available. In D&D that might be a reaction roll table - first to see how the tyrant responds to the insult, then (if that is adverse) to see if the guards answer the call, then (if they do) to see how the guards respond to the situation of the tyrant being under attack.




I'm not going to roll dice to determine how an NPC reacts to an insult, to see if the guards answer the call of their boss, or even how the guards are going to respond.  I'm going to play the "king" as I think a power mad egomaniac would react to the situation.  Based on the burgomaster's personality as described in the adventure, I certainly would have allowed the PCs an opportunity to placate him even after he called the guards.  Once someone pulls a knife on the burgomaster and tries to take him hostage?  Nope.  As far as those two PCs are concerned, the burgomaster could not be placated.  On the flip side, I wouldn't have led to an execution as I think the PCs would have ample opportunity to break their friend out.  It's not like the village has an actual prison.


----------



## iserith

Flipping through the module, I see on page 105 that it discusses possible reactions by the Baron. While it does not appear to specifically contemplate the PCs accosting him in the manner described, it does say: "If the characters get on his bad side, the baron accuses them of being 'spies of the devil Strahd' and sends twelve guards to arrest them, seize their weapons, and run them out of town." If the guard fails, the Baron's henchman and a mob of 30 commoners move to deal with the party. Failing that, the remaining guards just position themselves to guard the Baron's residence with him inside.

What I find interesting is that while one can probably derive the Baron's ideal, bond, and flaw from the text in this chapter, unless I missed it, these aren't specifically spelled out as they are with other NPCs in the module. (It's almost as if the Baron isn't as important as his henchman Izek Strazni who does have ideal, bond, and flaw listed along with his stat block.) These are very important in my view in giving the DM direction on how the NPC responds to actions from the PCs, especially in the context of the social interaction rules in the DMG.


----------



## Darth Solo

Execute the defiant PCs and allow the players to make new characters. Maybe the new PCs emerge from local Revolutionaries.


----------



## chaochou

prabe said:


> Missing the metaphor, I presume. Apparently you'd rather have the events play out in some randomly-determined way that might or might not be coherent with prior events and descriptions.




So combat, or any outcomes involving resolution mechanics in your game, only result random and incoherent outcomes?

An interesting suggestion, but your understanding of what I’d ‘rather’ is sadly ignorant of lots of other options.


----------



## prabe

chaochou said:


> So combat, or any outcomes involving resolution mechanics in your game, only result random and incoherent outcomes?
> 
> An interesting suggestion, but your understanding of what I’d ‘rather’ is sadly ignorant of lots of other options.




Well the dice are by definition random. I didn't say they were necessarily incoherent; I said they might or might not be. In some circumstances--such as combat--they represent uncertainty and/or imperfect knowledge. In this situation they remain only offer the potential for incoherence (the guards, guarding the notoriously irrational Mad Tyrant, are drunk?).

Really, though, I was reacting to your refusal to acknowledge the metaphor language of the dice having whims.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> Less specific; and yet more specific at the same time.  By the sound of things the PCs in this case had all kinds of in-fiction reasons to believe that the King wasn't exactly either nice or forgiving, and that pissing him off (and trying to kill him certainly qualifies under that!) would very likely have dire and fatal consequences.
> 
> Which means there's a strong case to be made here than trying to kill him is in effect a glorified version of an educated save-or-die: you either succeed or you die trying or shortly thereafter.  All the other mechanics have already been either expended or bypassed.
> 
> I applaud those players who took this gamble.  It sucks that they lost.




Yeah, I'm fine with them making this move. Especially now that I have more context on the specifics knowing it's from Curse of Strahd. 

The NPC in question is indeed mad. He's far from a king, although I suppose he's a tyrant of sorts. He's by no means beyond the ability of PCs to deal with. I'm curious what level they are that any possible number of guards may have given them pause.



Lanefan said:


> Someone was comparing a save-or-die trap vs the save-or-die variant situation I note just above.  You asked how much h.p. damage it'd do, and my point is that "die" doesn't care about hit points.




The problem with your analogy is that with some kind of save or die situation, it will either happen or it won't. Whether you're the DM or I'm the DM, the PC will trigger the save, and then they will either live or die based on their saving throw roll. 

With the NPC, that's simply not the case. You might play it one way, and I would play it another, and any number of other DMs would play it yet other ways. So no, they don't have to have the same effect.....not unless you have a specific in game means of producing that outcome through dice rolls, like reaction rolls or skill checks to influence or morale checks and so on. Absent those mechanics, then it's just the DM deciding, and he can decide anything he likes.

Therefore, that method is absent the mechanics that are present with the trap. So they are in fact very different.



Lanefan said:


> Were I a player here and the King threw my PC in jail (as opposed to having my head lopped off there and then, which sounds like it's in play for this guy) then sure I'd try to escape - though unless I was playing a Thief-like character I'd assume my odds of success to be approaching zero; it would largely be an exercise in going through the motions.
> 
> More realistically, any escape attempt would have to be externally driven; my PC's fate would largely be in the hands of those PCs who were still at large.  So, I'd proactively get started on rolling up something new while they sort that out (or decide not to  ) and if my existing PC does get freed then whatever I roll up can be stowed away for later.




So you'd try to escape. As would most players, I'd expect. Why would you only expect success if you were a thief? Oh, in the edition you play, that class has mechanics that allow for such actions, right? 

Kind of odd to rely on mechanics in only some instances, and to eschew them in others.


----------



## chaochou

billd91 said:


> Would you prefer caprice? Does the semantic difference really matter?



No, dice don’t have caprice either. And yes, the difference matters, and is profound, not semantic.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Fenris-77 said:


> Well, no, realistic consequences are not whatever the DM says they are. Unless what the DM says also happens to be realistic. 'Realistic' there means that the consequences flow naturally from the fiction in some way. You're right that it is _never_ just one answer though.




I think there's a lot of confusion between "realistic" and "likely" in this thread.


----------



## hawkeyefan

billd91 said:


> Huh, chaochou is complaining about the whim of the DM but apparently you'd rather submit to the whim of the dice? I dunno - which is more predictable to the players giving them a chance to make meaningful choices? Playing the mad tyrant according to his well-known personality quirks of being thin-skinned and arresting malcontents or rolling against a list that might make him play completely against personality or include things not at all causally related to the players' decisions like guards being drunk? How are the PCs going to guess anything rational if that's the alternative.
> 
> And no, having the guards arrest an insolent PC isn't the start of violence in this scenario. The PC could have gone along quietly and plotted a daring escape, but like a lot of players do, they overreact when faced with their PCs losing any sense of their physical freedom (even temporarily) and whip their weapons out, escalating the situation further like they were in a Knights of the Dinner Table story.




The dice are more predictable. They have a limited number of outcomes. A person's whim is essentially unlimited. 

The PC accused a mad ruler of being a tyrant unfit for rule. Must every ruler immediately suppress such an insult? Especially one who is defined as being mad? Couldn't he simply have laughed at the PC? Or even agreed, but pointed out any other leader wouldn't do so good a job as he? I mean, any number of reactions could be supported.

Even if you did strongly feel that's the only reasonable response, something like "I am unfit to rule, and yet, I do rule. And you'd best remember that or else I'll have you arrested" would accomplish the same thing, and also clearly let the player know that escalation is likely for any future insult.


----------



## billd91

hawkeyefan said:


> The dice are more predictable. They have a limited number of outcomes. A person's whim is essentially unlimited.
> 
> The PC accused a mad ruler of being a tyrant unfit for rule. Must every ruler immediately suppress such an insult? Especially one who is defined as being mad? Couldn't he simply have laughed at the PC? Or even agreed, but pointed out any other leader wouldn't do so good a job as he? I mean, any number of reactions could be supported.
> 
> Even if you did strongly feel that's the only reasonable response, something like "I am unfit to rule, and yet, I do rule. And you'd best remember that or else I'll have you arrested" would accomplish the same thing, and also clearly let the player know that escalation is likely for any future insult.




You're kind of missing an important point. The mad tyrant is fairly well-defined in the source material - well defined, enough, that believing that he'd laugh off the PC's insult is out of the picture. He's also well-defined enough that it's pretty easy for the PCs to learn what to expect when they enter into any kind of negotiation with him and avoid really stupid decisions (which, of course, one player pretty much blew off - apparently when he got bored). Even if you were to put together a random set of reactions for him to have, it should still be constrained within options reasonable to him and not unreasonable. That kind of precludes "any number of reactions" being supported - some of them would just be unreasonably unpredictable from the standpoint of a player trying to actually do a good job and interacting with the environment around them in a constructive manner.

I mean, sure, you could have the dice determine literally any number of reactions. But the style and genre kind of should be considered here. This is a Ravenloft adventure - gothic and dark, horrifying and menacing, with innocent people to try to protect, villains to destroy, and horrors to escape. It's not Toon where anything could happen, the more absurd the better. 

What's an attentive and thoughtful player supposed to do when their research or gathered information about a situation reacts significantly contrary to their information because the DM rolled something unexpected? What's the point of doing the research and preparing?


----------



## Guest 6801328

My two cents to add to the large pile of change accumulating here:

With the information available, it's possible that the players in question simply have a different sort of fiction in mind than the DM does.  After all, Conan gets away with this sort of thing.

If one wanted to support this kind of play, just imagine what would happen next if this were an action movie and the protagonists were in this pickle.  A traitor in the palace offers to free them if they will promise to do X.  A band of revolutionaries spring their compatriot from the dungeon, and just happen to free the PCs at the same time.  As the axe descends on their necks the axe-head flies off (and kills somebody?) which is taken to be an omen with weighty implications. Etc. etc. etc.

If one does _not_ want to support this style of play it sounds like the goals are not shared, and folks should go their own ways and find new people to play with.

And it's also possible the players are just immature.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> Yeah, I'm fine with them making this move. Especially now that I have more context on the specifics knowing it's from Curse of Strahd.
> 
> The NPC in question is indeed mad. He's far from a king, although I suppose he's a tyrant of sorts. He's by no means beyond the ability of PCs to deal with. I'm curious what level they are that any possible number of guards may have given them pause.



I'm not familiar at all with the specific module so I'll have to take your word for this. 



> The problem with your analogy is that with some kind of save or die situation, it will either happen or it won't. Whether you're the DM or I'm the DM, the PC will trigger the save, and then they will either live or die based on their saving throw roll.
> 
> With the NPC, that's simply not the case. You might play it one way, and I would play it another, and any number of other DMs would play it yet other ways. So no, they don't have to have the same effect.....not unless you have a specific in game means of producing that outcome through dice rolls, like reaction rolls or skill checks to influence or morale checks and so on. Absent those mechanics, then it's just the DM deciding, and he can decide anything he likes.
> 
> Therefore, that method is absent the mechanics that are present with the trap. So they are in fact very different.



All true, though I wasn't referring to the mechanics but rather just the most likely common-to-both end result.

Fail to disarm the trap: dead.
Fail to kill the King: dead.



> So you'd try to escape. As would most players, I'd expect. Why would you only expect success if you were a thief? Oh, in the edition you play, that class has mechanics that allow for such actions, right?
> 
> Kind of odd to rely on mechanics in only some instances, and to eschew them in others.



Physical in-fiction actions have mechanics because we can't play them out at the table.  This includes picking and-or breaking locks, beating up guards, hiding in shadows or corners, and so forth; as we don't have locks to pick or guards to beat up at the table we have to let game mechanics take over to handle these things.

Social interactions don't need mechanics because we *can* play them out at the table.


----------



## MGibster

hawkeyefan said:


> The PC accused a mad ruler of being a tyrant unfit for rule. Must every ruler immediately suppress such an insult? Especially one who is defined as being mad? Couldn't he simply have laughed at the PC? Or even agreed, but pointed out any other leader wouldn't do so good a job as he? I mean, any number of reactions could be supported.




In this particular case...



Spoiler



The baron is under the delusion that making everyone in the village happy will spare them from Strahd's attention.  He throws festivals one right after the other and many villagers are growing a bit weary.  In recent weeks, the Baron has taken to arresting villagers who speak against the festivals either placing them in stocks or imprisoning them in his own mansion.


  Must every ruler immediately suppress such an insult?  No.  But this particular ruler likely would believing them to be in league with the enemy.


----------



## hawkeyefan

billd91 said:


> You're kind of missing an important point. The mad tyrant is fairly well-defined in the source material - well defined, enough, that believing that he'd laugh off the PC's insult is out of the picture. He's also well-defined enough that it's pretty easy for the PCs to learn what to expect when they enter into any kind of negotiation with him and avoid *really stupid decisions *(which, of course, one player pretty much blew off - apparently when he got bored). Even if you were to put together a random set of reactions for him to have, it should still be constrained within options reasonable to him and not unreasonable. That kind of precludes "any number of reactions" being supported - some of them would just be unreasonably unpredictable from the standpoint of a player trying to actually do a good job and interacting with the environment around them in a constructive manner.




I'm not missing that at all. Laughing off an insult is not out of the picture. It's really a matter of how the DM chooses to play it, isn't it? 

And yes, he's well defined in the book....but the players haven't read the book. So they're relying on the DM to convey what's in there. I don't think we have enough information to determine if he clearly established it. And even if he did, I still don't think that the player did anything wrong by deciding to challenge the NPC. My players did the exact same thing, really. They talked to the guy, realized he's batty as all get out, and then gave up on diplomacy. 

I think that the part I've bolded above is what may be at the heart of my issue here. What makes this a really stupid decision? And, do you mean on the part of the character or the player? 

I said earlier in the thread that many seemed to act as if the player needed to be punished in some way. And I don't know if that's the case. Yes, it turns out that this player may have some odd expectations about play based on additional information that the OP has offered. But I don't think that this specific instance must be a case of a player being disruptive.



billd91 said:


> I mean, sure, you could have the dice determine literally any number of reactions. But the style and genre kind of should be considered here. This is a Ravenloft adventure - gothic and dark, horrifying and menacing, with innocent people to try to protect, villains to destroy, and horrors to escape. It's not Toon where anything could happen, the more absurd the better.




Yes, I'd expect any and all methods of resolution to take the genre and fiction into account.



billd91 said:


> What's an attentive and thoughtful player supposed to do when their research or gathered information about a situation reacts significantly contrary to their information because the DM rolled something unexpected? What's the point of doing the research and preparing?




Why would a roll of some sort result in something more unexpected than what the DM can simly come up with off the top of his head?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> I'm not familiar at all with the specific module so I'll have to take your word for this.




He's the equivalent of a mayor of a town. He's virtually a zero level human, to put it in a context you'll immediately get. And he has a cadre of guards at his disposal that are probably pretty rank and file "human guard/bandit" types. 





Lanefan said:


> All true, though I wasn't referring to the mechanics but rather just the most likely common-to-both end result.
> 
> Fail to disarm the trap: dead.
> Fail to kill the King: dead.




Yes, I get that the end result is the same. Do you see how the means to that end is different for each example as I explained? How one will play out per the rules regardless of who is in the DM chair, and the other will vary wildly depending on who is in the DM chair? Would you agree with that? If not, why not?



Lanefan said:


> Physical in-fiction actions have mechanics because we can't play them out at the table.  This includes picking and-or breaking locks, beating up guards, hiding in shadows or corners, and so forth; as we don't have locks to pick or guards to beat up at the table we have to let game mechanics take over to handle these things.
> 
> Social interactions don't need mechanics because we *can* play them out at the table.




I don't think that's the only reason by any means. And it isn't a question of "need". We don't "need" saving throws. Hell, some editions said we didn't "need" skills. 

I think that people have mentioned that mechanics can help in these cases because so much of what happened was well within the power of the DM to determine.....and yet, the DM is at least partially dissatisfied with the end result. But there were many points where he had influence on how things would play out. Plenty of them. So being dissatisfied with the end result, to me, indicates that something should have been done differently.


----------



## hawkeyefan

MGibster said:


> In this particular case...
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> The baron is under the delusion that making everyone in the village happy will spare them from Strahd's attention.  He throws festivals one right after the other and many villagers are growing a bit weary.  In recent weeks, the Baron has taken to arresting villagers who speak against the festivals either placing them in stocks or imprisoning them in his own mansion.
> 
> 
> Must every ruler immediately suppress such an insult?  No.  But this particular ruler likely would believing them to be in league with the enemy.




Yes, I am familiar with him. But I don't think that means that he absolutely must behave in the way described in the OP every time anyone challenges him. Especially since he's used to arresting villagers. Not outsiders. Outsiders who may have obvious skill and power, and may prove to be either quite a problem for him, or quite a resource. 

As I said, perhaps a line like "I'll forgive this insolence once because you are guests in my village....but do not mistake my mercy for weakness".  Wouldn't this be "realistic"? Or must it be "GUARDS!!!!!" immediately, every time?


----------



## Maxperson

chaochou said:


> No, dice don’t have caprice either. And yes, the difference matters, and is profound, not semantic.



*Examples of capricious in a Sentence*"

 … every balloon voyage is a race between capricious winds and the amount of fuel on board.— Tom Morganthau, _Newsweek_, 29 Mar. 1999S

he is capricious, however, and is said to take bribes and wantonly peddle her influence from time to time.— Hunter S. Thompson, _Rolling Stone_, 15 Dec. 1994"

That was from Merriam Webster.  The following is Cambridge dictionary.

"capricious
adjective

US 

 /kəˈprɪʃ·əs, -ˈpri·ʃəs/

likely to change, or reacting to a sudden desire or new idea:
We have had very capricious weather lately."

If wind and weather can be capricious, so can dice.


----------



## Fenris-77

Dice? Only in the short term, even if that sometimes feels like the long term. Wind and dice are actually a great example of capricious and not capricious respectively.


----------



## pemerton

Hriston said:


> Or presumably, an ability check to influence any one of those NPCs.



I tend to think of a reaction roll table and a CHA check as reasonably equivalent, because in my Classic Traveller game we treat the reaction roll table as a player-side mechanic where the player makes the roll and adds Liaison or Leadership or whatever as appropriate.

But I can see that there might be approaches to play where the contrast between them is greater than I tend to think of it as being.


----------



## Retreater

Well if I hadn't already set up the expectations of how he'd respond based on what all the party's intel had told them, I could've had him show more mercy or laugh it off. But I feel like I was painted into a corner and a portion of the players unwilling to take it seriously were testing me. And yes, he was even planning on letting them go after the attack on him. Then they unprovoked attacked guards with lethal force in front of the townsfolk. So what's a leader (crazy or not) to do in that situation? If they hadn't escaped, I'd have had no hesitance in executing them at that point.


----------



## Fenris-77

Players that test like that are asking for trouble. They're a lot like hitmen in movies actually, it doesn't really matter what happens to them, no one feels bad about it.


----------



## Numidius

Turns out the mad tyrant is a deluded mayor of a decadent village?


----------



## Numidius

If so, the in-game "consequences" look like the whole setting should consider the party of PC's a main actor to deal with, that isn't afraid to use force and magic aggressively.


----------



## MGibster

hawkeyefan said:


> Yes, I am familiar with him. But I don't think that means that he absolutely must behave in the way described in the OP every time anyone challenges him.




I don't know if anyone's arguing that he _must_ behave in the way described only that it's reasonable.



> Especially since he's used to arresting villagers. Not outsiders. Outsiders who may have obvious skill and power, and may prove to be either quite a problem for him, or quite a resource.




The baron is specifically described as having a brittle ego and lashing out against anyone who treats him with disrespect.  If the PCs had just questioned his festival I probably wouldn't have had the baron call the guards to arrest them though later the guard's would come to kick them out of town.  But since one of the PC's questioned the baron's right to rule, I would also have had him call for his guards immediately, and even then there would have been a chance for them to talk their way out of the situation.   However, if the PCs had  resorted to violence, by like, I don't know, trying to take him hostage, there would have been no way of placating the baron short of arresting the two PCs.  I would have given the others the chance to get off the hook by speaking with the baron. 

Of course, the baron is not all that tough in the grand scheme of things and it might have been interesting for the PCs to just kill him right then and there.  It'd be interesting to see how the political side of things plays out in the village and it'd give Strahd a reason to pop by and look after the PC's actions.


----------



## MGibster

Umbran said:


> I'm a, "mature adults talk to each other," kind of guy.  Resolving things IC is often a passive-aggressive route to misunderstanding and bad feelings all around at the table.  You don't resolve questions like, "What are you expecting in the game?" by in-game action.




I'm an actions have consequences type of DM and even I endorse your message above.  It's always best to talk to your players in order to avoid having them feel as though they're being retaliated against.


----------



## cmad1977

Isn’t there a former Baroness working against the baron in Vallaki? She can hire/protect the party. Heck she even wants the mayor dead for his madness.

Now... the things she wants... “gulp”


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> He's the equivalent of a mayor of a town. He's virtually a zero level human, to put it in a context you'll immediately get. And he has a cadre of guards at his disposal that are probably pretty rank and file "human guard/bandit" types.



That's quite bit different than a King and his retinue, which is the context I first read this in (and which IMO would make for better discussion: attacking a King whose word really is the law is somewhat more all-or-nothing than attacking some minor local noble-wannabe).

Which now has me wondering: if he and his guards are so pathetic how did the PCs ever manage to blow their shot at taking him out?



> Yes, I get that the end result is the same. Do you see how the means to that end is different for each example as I explained? How one will play out per the rules regardless of who is in the DM chair, and the other will vary wildly depending on who is in the DM chair? Would you agree with that? If not, why not?



System differences aside, I would agree with that; and go on to say it's not that much of a problem.

Physical stuff like dealing with a trap plays out by the mechanics we use to replace doing it for real.  But social stuff not so much, and as the mad tyrant is a character his reaction to being threatened is going to come under 'social'.

Each DM who runs that module is going to, from the information given, develop his-her own idea of what makes that mad-tyrant guy tick and play him accordingly.  One DM might play up the 'mad' aspect and have the guy start giggling uncontrollably at the sight of a drawn weapon.  Another DM might play up the 'tyrant' part and have him sic his guards on the PCs at the very first sign of disrespect.  A third DM might see him as a typical bully - all bluster and no real bravery - who at first sight of a weapon drawn against him breaks down into a cowering mess.

All are valid; though I suspect the 'average' of all might end up trending a bit toward the 'tyrant' version.



> Hell, some editions said we didn't "need" skills.



To the extent that 3e-4e-5e took them, I'd agree. 



> I think that people have mentioned that mechanics can help in these cases because so much of what happened was well within the power of the DM to determine.....and yet, the DM is at least partially dissatisfied with the end result. But there were many points where he had influence on how things would play out. Plenty of them. So being dissatisfied with the end result, to me, indicates that something should have been done differently.



This to me conflates two separate and disconnected issues: mechanics use and end satisfaction.

Sure, what happened from the NPC side was completely within the DM's power to control.  And in hindsight maybe the DM wasn't too pleased with what he-she did with it and how it all shook down - we've probably all had those moments more often that we'd care to admit  - but that's much the same as a DM making any other call and later realizing it could have been done better: live with it and move on.

Had some systemized mechanics been used there's nothing saying they couldn't have led to the exact same outcome, and what then?  Does the DM blame the mechanics for leading to an unsatisfactory result?


----------



## Retreater

cmad1977 said:


> Isn’t there a former Baroness working against the baron in Vallaki? She can hire/protect the party. Heck she even wants the mayor dead for his madness.
> 
> Now... the things she wants... “gulp”



Yep. And earlier in the same session they went to talk to the Burgomaster, the same hot-headed player scoffed at her idea to work together and said he didn't want to put "the greater evil" in power, effectively ending negotiations with her too. The party tried to talk down the affront but basically told her, "we're going to go talk to the Burgomaster and see if he's really that bad." And then the exchange I described in the first post happened immediately afterwards.


----------



## Retreater

Lanefan said:


> That's quite bit different than a King and his retinue, which is the context I first read this in (and which IMO would make for better discussion: attacking a King whose word really is the law is somewhat more all-or-nothing than attacking some minor local noble-wannabe).
> 
> Which now has me wondering: if he and his guards are so pathetic how did the PCs ever manage to blow their shot at taking him out?



They absolutely could have, had they been working together and not with different goals in the encounter. Had they discussed it before going there, saying they were going to attack him and be done with it, they certainly could've pulled it off and been justified in doing so. My issue wasn't "was the action right or possible to do" it was "how do I (as the DM) maintain some believability after a brazen insult to an unhinged ruler and failed assassination attempt?" 
The crazed mayor was even behaving cordial and polite to his guests until things went to pot. The hot-headed player just completely snapped out of the blue when the mayor was describing how his festival was going to bring happiness to the people of his village and drive away evil (a crazy idea, but one the party knew he had been advertising throughout the town.)  
At this stage, I'd say the party has severely mucked up their chances of finding allies in Vallaki (if you know the adventure). The one group in the village who could possibly side with them (the wereravens) probably won't want to side with such an unstable group who blurt out the first thing that pops into their heads, thus completely outing them to the nefarious agents of Strahd.
But basically we have two loose cannons (my longtime friend - the hot-headed player, the sorcerer who blasted everyone as soon as he came back after missing a session), two players who want to proceed with caution and get invested in their characters and try to behave realistically, and a third player who's just there for fun and wants to keep the party together (the would-be assassin).


----------



## Umbran

MGibster said:


> I'm an actions have consequences type of DM and even I endorse your message above.




Yeah.  These are not at all exclusive things.  Talk to your players, work with them so that everyone's on board with the expectations and genre conventions.  _Then_, you are well set for "actions have consequences", because the players are making informed decisions.


----------



## prabe

Retreater said:


> But basically we have two loose cannons (my longtime friend - the hot-headed player, the sorcerer who blasted everyone as soon as he came back after missing a session), two players who want to proceed with caution and get invested in their characters and try to behave realistically, and a third player who's just there for fun and wants to keep the party together (the would-be assassin).




Maybe they need to split the party when they try to engage in ways the loose cannon/s can foul up? The groups I GM for do that, though that's more about dealing with two things at once than keeping Team Getting Into Trouble away from Serious Interactions.


----------



## Retreater

Umbran said:


> Yeah.  These are not at all exclusive things.  Talk to your players, work with them so that everyone's on board with the expectations and genre conventions.  _Then_, you are well set for "actions have consequences", because the players are making informed decisions.



Yeah, we had a discussion of that before we started the campaign, but perhaps it wasn't stated emphatically enough. Hopefully the email after the last session got the point home (I'll find out at tomorrow night's session, I guess). If not, I'll suggest transitioning to either a different adventure to fit their play style or encourage one of them to DM. I know that two of the players emailed me separately to complain about the actions of another two players, and that's not a formula for a happy group.


----------



## Retreater

prabe said:


> Maybe they need to split the party when they try to engage in ways the loose cannon/s can foul up? The groups I GM for do that, though that's more about dealing with two things at once than keeping Team Getting Into Trouble away from Serious Interactions.



Right. I suggested the two more cautious players to sign in for a solo (duo?) gaming session, full of roleplay, to try to smooth out what happened in the town and to try to create relationships with the NPCs that their characters already know. And if not that, maybe just a simple "tell me what you want to do" email and I'll handwave it.


----------



## Ovinomancer

This has the hallmarks of a common problem, both in printed adventures and in homebrew:  the personalities involved are meant to be an interesting encounter but are written in a fixed state, leaving no real out from the initial situation.  Here, Vallaki is meant to be in flux -- there are factions vying for control and looking for the PCs to be the fulcrum.  The problem is that none of them are appealing and any attempt to strike a different option leads to a fixed outcome of alienation from the town.  Overthrow the Burgomaster?  Can only be done by violence, and if you don't have the Lady's support, the town turns on you.  Even standing up to the Burgomaster has a scripted event where the townsfolk support the Burgomaster.  The same townsfolk that are oppressed by him.

I understand that Barovia is meant to be dark and dismal and twisted, but this is a no-win situation for the PCs, especially if approached via the social pillar.  It either forces you to accept a bad status quo, work with worse people to start a new, worse status quo, or do what PCs do -- fight, which is a very bad option.  

I so wish adventure designers would stop thinking they're so clever by putting in these 'compromise' situations.  So many don't play to compromise, but to triumph over evil, and these things always cause problems.


----------



## Fenris-77

Forcing players to choose between two unpalatable options is fine, especially at the outset. It often results in pretty good roleplaying and some deep thought. Consequences that matter, right? If they decide they want to fight, that's awesome, I'd probably pick that option, but you need a plan in place. If you just rush in tromping about in your big boots, you're decidedly less likely to get what you want.

The scripted responses in the module are a tool, not an inevitability. Actions on the part of the PCs can and should change the fiction state, and it's on the DM to work that out. It would be nice if the writing supported what that might look like, but it's not exactly rocket science. You shouldn't treat the module like a straight jacket.


----------



## Manbearcat

Ovinomancer said:


> This has the hallmarks of a common problem, both in printed adventures and in homebrew:  the personalities involved are meant to be an interesting encounter but are written in a fixed state, leaving no real out from the initial situation.  Here, Vallaki is meant to be in flux -- there are factions vying for control and looking for the PCs to be the fulcrum.  The problem is that none of them are appealing and any attempt to strike a different option leads to a fixed outcome of alienation from the town.  Overthrow the Burgomaster?  Can only be done by violence, and if you don't have the Lady's support, the town turns on you.  Even standing up to the Burgomaster has a scripted event where the townsfolk support the Burgomaster.  The same townsfolk that are oppressed by him.
> 
> I understand that Barovia is meant to be dark and dismal and twisted, but this is a no-win situation for the PCs, especially if approached via the social pillar.  It either forces you to accept a bad status quo, work with worse people to start a new, worse status quo, or do what PCs do -- fight, which is a very bad option.
> 
> I so wish adventure designers would stop thinking they're so clever by putting in these 'compromise' situations.  So many don't play to compromise, but to triumph over evil, and these things always cause problems.




Good post and thanks for the context.

Again, this goes back to “if all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.”

If D&D had robust, player-facing mechanics that allowed players to make informed decision-points, engage noncombat action resolution mechanics with teeth, and feel the weight of those decisions/actions and their mechanical output (including quantitative gain and fallout) within a complex faction game inside a sandbox setting, “resort to violence and engage the combat mechanics” wouldn’t be as commonplace.

Or we can just keep blaming players (when the reality is, this “always degenerate to violence” paradigm doesn’t happen in games that feature the above tech/ethos).


----------



## Fenris-77

@Manbearcat, I'm enjoying the _Dungeon World_ crypto-cheerleading in your post above. I also agree completely. The flimsy nature of the non-combat action mechanics in D&D are certainly a barrier to realizing certain styles of gameplay, at least in my experience. I'm always striking a balance between hacking 5E to suit my desires, and not just turning it into another game (like DW, or Blades, or, or, or).


----------



## MGibster

Manbearcat said:


> Good post and thanks for the context.
> 
> Again, this goes back to “if all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.”




Both times I ran Curse of Strahd I told the players beforehand they should make an effort to speak to NPCs and creatures they wouldn't normally be inclined to speak to in other campaigns.  I also made it clear they could run into encounters they were not leveled to deal with so they should tread lightly.


----------



## Umbran

Fenris-77 said:


> You shouldn't treat the module like a straight jacket.




You shouldn't.  But... where are you supposed to learn how not to?


----------



## Fenris-77

Umbran said:


> You shouldn't.  But... where are you supposed to learn how not to?



That is a fair point. Some of the material in the core books kind of suggests that the game should be run like that, but it's not terribly specific. The module certainly could have contained a broader range of options.


----------



## TwoSix

Manbearcat said:


> If D&D had robust, player-facing mechanics that allowed players to make informed decision-points, engage noncombat action resolution mechanics with teeth, and feel the weight of those decisions/actions and their mechanical output (including quantitative gain and fallout) within a complex faction game inside a sandbox setting, “resort to violence and engage the combat mechanics” wouldn’t be as commonplace.



Which is why in D&D (non-4E) games, I almost always play a spellcaster; that's the only way to ensure I have access to a formalized power structure that isn't contingent on negotiation.


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> Good post and thanks for the context.
> 
> Again, this goes back to “if all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.”
> 
> If D&D had robust, player-facing mechanics that allowed players to make informed decision-points, engage noncombat action resolution mechanics with teeth, and feel the weight of those decisions/actions and their mechanical output (including quantitative gain and fallout) within a complex faction game inside a sandbox setting, “resort to violence and engage the combat mechanics” wouldn’t be as commonplace.
> 
> Or we can just keep blaming players (when the reality is, this “always degenerate to violence” paradigm doesn’t happen in games that feature the above tech/ethos).



The text box in these modules is just the default state of things.  It can still be changed by the players/PCs.  If the players don't bother to do anything and just attack, yes the town will support the ruler.  Same if the DM literally cant think outside of the text box.  If you have players who come up with ways to change the minds of the townsfolk and work at it, and a halfway competent DM, you aren't going to be limited to just the narrow path the module lays out.

It looks like you only have a hammer if the players choose to look at it that way.  If they bother to check their mental backpacks, they will find other tools waiting there to be used.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> You shouldn't.  But... where are you supposed to learn how not to?



The DMG.  It's full of advice on how the rules serve the DM, not other way around, how to change things, altering NPC reactions, etc.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> That is a fair point. Some of the material in the core books kind of suggests that the game should be run like that, but it's not terribly specific. The module certainly could have contained a broader range of options.



Or just a paragraph in the front telling the DM that it's okay to change things to fit the situation and not feel bound to follow the text to the letter.


----------



## iserith

Maxperson said:


> The DMG.  It's full of advice on how the rules serve the DM, not other way around, how to change things, altering NPC reactions, etc.




Nobody reads the DMG, especially DMs.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> Forcing players to choose between two unpalatable options is fine, especially at the outset. It often results in pretty good roleplaying and some deep thought. Consequences that matter, right? If they decide they want to fight, that's awesome, I'd probably pick that option, but you need a plan in place. If you just rush in tromping about in your big boots, you're decidedly less likely to get what you want.
> 
> The scripted responses in the module are a tool, not an inevitability. Actions on the part of the PCs can and should change the fiction state, and it's on the DM to work that out. It would be nice if the writing supported what that might look like, but it's not exactly rocket science. You shouldn't treat the module like a straight jacket.



Actually, I kinda think presenting multiple bad options as decided by the GM without player choices leading into them as not really consequences that matter -- if your option is choose this consequence or that one and you didn't get a say in being in that spot to begin with, it's not much of a consequence so much as the GM fiat enforcing a situation.

Now, I get what you're aiming at, I think, which is that hard choices are okay, and I agree. I don't think the presentation of Vallaki is a reasonable hard choice, though, as there's no way through the written material that achieves any good outcome and most result in the town turning against you.  And, as you say, the fact that it's written this way in the module is not a requirement for a GM to run it that way, but that expects not the usual level of customization necessary but that you will wholly rewrite something that a professional presented.  That's a high hurdle.  Granted, I pretty much read anything pre-written by someone else and gut it, taking only the bits I like, but I've got that experience.  The point of a module is that these things are supposedly written by a professional and present a reasonable situation.


----------



## prabe

Hard choices are fine, but there are going to be players who reject (or at least resent) what seem like no-win situations. If they aren't presented with any good options they'll try something else. I have a strong preference for presenting choice between competing goods; choosing the greater good feels more explicitly heroic than choosing the lesser evil. It feels to me more like choosing how you'll win, where choosing the lesser evil feels like choosing how to lose.


----------



## Retreater

I can tell you as the DM of this group that there was definitely a good option for the party - they could side with the wereravens or even just overthrow the Burgomaster on their own. The problem came with when they went in without a plan, one bored player forced the hands of the rest of the party not looking for combat, and did not work in unity at all.


----------



## prabe

Retreater said:


> I can tell you as the DM of this group that there was definitely a good option for the party - they could side with the wereravens or even just overthrow the Burgomaster on their own. The problem came with when they went in without a plan, one bored player forced the hands of the rest of the party not looking for combat, and did not work in unity at all.




Fair enough. Sounds as though you at least have a handle on the personalities, here. Ravenloft has a reputation for no-win situations, for as long as I've known about it (early nineties, IIRC), and has never appealed to me.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Retreater said:


> I can tell you as the DM of this group that there was definitely a good option for the party - they could side with the wereravens or even just overthrow the Burgomaster on their own. The problem came with when they went in without a plan, one bored player forced the hands of the rest of the party not looking for combat, and did not work in unity at all.



The question being:  did the players know this as well?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Let me take the sting out of that.  I've found, over many years, myself surprised that something I thought was obvious to the players wasn't.  It's part of why I've moved towards extreme oversharing of anything important in my games.  I beat it like a drum.  Because, I found that even if I give my notes to players, they'll still likely miss things I think are obvious.  And, even with the notes, they're guaranteed to screw up by the numbers.  Largely, finding out how the players are going to go awry this time is a big part of why I still GM.


----------



## Retreater

Ovinomancer said:


> Let me take the sting out of that.  I've found, over many years, myself surprised that something I thought was obvious to the players wasn't.  It's part of why I've moved towards extreme oversharing of anything important in my games.  I beat it like a drum.  Because, I found that even if I give my notes to players, they'll still likely miss things I think are obvious.  And, even with the notes, they're guaranteed to screw up by the numbers.  Largely, finding out how the players are going to go awry this time is a big part of why I still GM.



I don't know how much of my statements to the group were lost potentially because of a shift to online play. And maybe some players feel a disconnect playing with only voice and on a computer rather than at a F2F game. And clearly there are other things going on around the world that may affect the players. I'm trying to keep all this in mind going forward.
I'm trying to not view this as a ruined situation, but rather as an opportunity for them to reassess and get on track with their party goals - and that doesn't matter what the adventure's text says or my idea of plot is. I just want the consequences of their actions to have ramifications and I don't want to coddle them if they make rash decisions.


----------



## Fenris-77

@Ovinomancer - I would never offer a pair of unpalatable choices if the players hadn't done somewhat to put themselves in a position where that's what follows from the fiction. I'm very PbtA when it comes to outcomes flowing from player choices, and that choice is in the nature of a soft fail state of some sort, to abstract it slightly from the specific example at hand. I'd agree that the module itself has some design issues in that regard and that the DM could reasonably have expected the writer to provide him with a more engaging decision tree with a few more branches.

I'll second your subsequent post about what you, as the writer/designer, feel is obvious turning out to be no so obvious. That happens all the time to everyone I think, at least people who write their own material. I know it happens to me. Over explaining and notes are both good ideas.


----------



## Lanefan

Umbran said:


> You shouldn't.  But... where are you supposed to learn how not to?



If all else fails, the same place many things are learned: trial and error over the long term.


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> Now, I get what you're aiming at, I think, which is that hard choices are okay, and I agree. I don't think the presentation of Vallaki is a reasonable hard choice, though, as there's no way through the written material that achieves any good outcome and most result in the town turning against you.



In principle I don't mind this: the module is trying to steer the PCs into a worse situation than they had before by in effect sailing them into a hole from which any way out ends up increasing the overall challenge they have to face.

In hindsight, when debriefing after the adventure, the PCs might come to realize that maybe they'd have been better off never going to that town in the first place.  In that regard, the town becomes analagous to a great big multi-faceted trap, which is really cool!


----------



## Ovinomancer

Lanefan said:


> In principle I don't mind this: the module is trying to steer the PCs into a worse situation than they had before by in effect sailing them into a hole from which any way out ends up increasing the overall challenge they have to face.
> 
> In hindsight, when debriefing after the adventure, the PCs might come to realize that maybe they'd have been better off never going to that town in the first place.  In that regard, the town becomes analagous to a great big multi-faceted trap, which is really cool!



We have different ideas of cool. Unavoidable traps with nothing but bad outcomes don't make my list.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> We have different ideas of cool. Unavoidable traps with nothing but bad outcomes don't make my list.




I believe that @Lanefan is presuming the party could have avoided the town. I also expect he is working from a formulation similar to this: Unavoidable traps: not cool. Avoidable traps: cool. Avoidable traps that rapidly reduce the good options available to the party: really cool.

I think, though, that this might be one of those things that is clearly on The Adventure Path (and therefore really hard to avoid) that then works to rapidly reduce the good options available to the party. Players accustomed to Adventure Paths might (correctly) intuit that they're "supposed to" go to this place, but not have any idea what's there until they get there, at which point their options start dwindling rapidly. So, a trap that the party in principle could have avoided but in practice figured out they weren't supposed to. I think that's even worse than one they couldn't have avoided, personally.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> I believe that @Lanefan is presuming the party could have avoided the town. I also expect he is working from a formulation similar to this: Unavoidable traps: not cool. Avoidable traps: cool. Avoidable traps that rapidly reduce the good options available to the party: really cool.
> 
> I think, though, that this might be one of those things that is clearly on The Adventure Path (and therefore really hard to avoid) that then works to rapidly reduce the good options available to the party. Players accustomed to Adventure Paths might (correctly) intuit that they're "supposed to" go to this place, but not have any idea what's there until they get there, at which point their options start dwindling rapidly. So, a trap that the party in principle could have avoided but in practice figured out they weren't supposed to. I think that's even worse than one they couldn't have avoided, personally.



Pretty sure the only avoiding @Lanefan had in mind was deciding to not go to the town.  Also pretty sure this would be a blind decision absent any information.  Had a few years of @Lanefan posts to know he's super stingy with information in game, so is very unlikely to telegraph a "bad town" in any meaningful way.

Not that that's bad, Lan clearly has fun, just indicating it's very much not my cuppa.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> Pretty sure the only avoiding @Lanefan had in mind was deciding to not go to the town.  Also pretty sure this would be a blind decision absent any information.  Had a few years of @Lanefan posts to know he's super stingy with information in game, so is very unlikely to telegraph a "bad town" in any meaningful way.
> 
> Not that that's bad, Lan clearly has fun, just indicating it's very much not my cuppa.




I also get the feeling @Lanefan doesn't run (probably doesn't play, might not see the appeal of) the whole Adventure Path thing, either. There's definitely a subtext when you're a player in one, telling you where the adventure is supposed to go. I'm very bad at Adventure Paths.


----------



## Retreater

I don't mind if they're going off the rails of the adventure path per se, but it's that I'm trying to run it using the module on a VTT, and not on a home F2F game I can easily adapt. So if the group wants to go to a new area not detailed in the adventure, to deal with different NPCs, face alternative challenges, etc, I can't easily change it in this format. Now given enough advance notice, I can make new maps, add new NPC stat blocks, etc, but we're all stressing out in our daily lives, I'm running a weekly session for them (instead of the normal biweekly or monthly) and I think going along with a general storyline the party agreed to play at the outset for the sake of DM sanity isn't too much to ask.


----------



## billd91

prabe said:


> I also get the feeling @Lanefan doesn't run (probably doesn't play, might not see the appeal of) the whole Adventure Path thing, either. There's definitely a subtext when you're a player in one, telling you where the adventure is supposed to go. I'm very bad at Adventure Paths.




There's definitely a subtext that suggests if you're going to participate in an AP, you should make a character amenable to the AP's adventure hooks that take you into the overall story and look for ways to enhance and move the story along. I don't think that's quite the same as telling you where to go as much as you agree to be pulled there. Once you accept the premise that you should make a character who fits the AP's assumptions, I find the events of the AP will bring you along pretty well.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> The DMG.  It's full of advice on how the rules serve the DM, not other way around




This isn't a rules question, though.



> how to change things




The DMG has a whole whopping paragraph on page 72 that tells you that you can do so. 

_How_ to go about it, though - how to know when you might want to, what to consider as you do so - is notably lacking.  It quickly goes into adventure creations - it has less than one column on general adventure structure, a couple of pages each on very high level approach to a couple adventure types.    But it never links those points on creation back to addressing what you see as flaws or ill-fitting points in a published work.


----------



## Fenris-77

I feel like there's room for a short 3PP monograph here, titled something like _How to Hack Your Module_.  Something that explains maybe what to look for in an AP, common issues, a little bit on massaging the CR to work with your actual party, and a longer bit about how to adapt to the changing fiction on the fly. I know, I know, someone is going to say, _yeah Fenris, you should get right on that... _


----------



## prabe

billd91 said:


> There's definitely a subtext that suggests if you're going to participate in an AP, you should make a character amenable to the AP's adventure hooks that take you into the overall story and look for ways to enhance and move the story along. I don't think that's quite the same as telling you where to go as much as you agree to be pulled there. Once you accept the premise that you should make a character who fits the AP's assumptions, I find the events of the AP will bring you along pretty well.




Yeah. Then the logic holes start to accrue and I start to ask questions. I start to behave in ways the writers didn't anticipate--not out of malice or a desire to break the AP, but because I think differently than the writers presume players will. Present me with smugglers and I want to know why they're smuggling. I mean, sure, they're trying to make a profit, but are they trying to get around taxes/tariffs/duties, or is there some officially-mandated middleman with monopsony/monopoly power they're trying to get around, or are there sumptuary laws in effect that the people resent, or are these products flat illegal here, or is there something else? (The NPCs weren't able to provide an answer ...)


----------



## Lanefan

prabe said:


> I also get the feeling @Lanefan doesn't run (probably doesn't play, might not see the appeal of) the whole Adventure Path thing, either.



As the entirety of a campaign?  Not for me, no.

I'll bake an AP-like series now and then into a bigger campaign, mind you, but even then if the PCs decide to go off the map then so be it - I have to adapt.



> There's definitely a subtext when you're a player in one, telling you where the adventure is supposed to go. I'm very bad at Adventure Paths.



Me too, particularly if the AP's underlying premise doesn't hold much appeal and-or isn't clear.  But if the AP's premise is engaging - or if the characters themselves are fun and engaging enough in their own interactions that it doesn't really matter what we're doing in the bigger picture - then I'll happily ride the rails.


----------



## Lanefan

prabe said:


> Yeah. Then the logic holes start to accrue and I start to ask questions. I start to behave in ways the writers didn't anticipate--not out of malice or a desire to break the AP, but because I think differently than the writers presume players will. Present me with smugglers and I want to know why they're smuggling. I mean, sure, they're trying to make a profit, but are they trying to get around taxes/tariffs/duties, or is there some officially-mandated middleman with monopsony/monopoly power they're trying to get around, or are there sumptuary laws in effect that the people resent, or are these products flat illegal here, or is there something else? (The NPCs weren't able to provide an answer ...)



...or how do I get in on the action?


----------



## Hriston

pemerton said:


> I tend to think of a reaction roll table and a CHA check as reasonably equivalent, because in my Classic Traveller game we treat the reaction roll table as a player-side mechanic where the player makes the roll and adds Liaison or Leadership or whatever as appropriate.
> 
> But I can see that there might be approaches to play where the contrast between them is greater than I tend to think of it as being.



Agreed, and I didn't mean to suggest a contrast, but rather to point out that a mechanic as fundamental to 5E as an ability check can be used to determine the reaction of an NPC. You don't need to import mechanics from other games or editions to do so. 

Curiously, 5E's social interaction rules have the DM assign a starting attitude to NPCs, either friendly, indifferent, or hostile, the same categories that appear on the AD&D encounter reaction table. It's basically a formalized way of setting DCs for Charisma checks to influence the NPC. It's something I'll roll for at the beginning of an encounter using the probabilities from the encounter reaction table, so in my game there actually is something of the contrast you suggest. The "encounter reaction" roll sets the starting attitude which then determines the DCs of any Charisma checks.

To bring this back to the OP, though, I think there may have been some room in the scenario for testing the loyalty of the burgomeister's hirelings using the Loyalty rules in the DMG, which is something else I like to use in a way that harkens back to AD&D.


----------



## Maxperson

Umbran said:


> The DMG has a whole whopping paragraph on page 72 that tells you that you can do so.




Two of those paragraphs are applicable, but I do agree that there could have been more.  That said, the DMG advises DMs to make the game their own and that the rules serve them, not the other way around.  With that in mind, many portions of the DMG not explicitly mentioning published adventures become good advice to the DM on how to make the module better. 

I think there is sufficient information in the DMG for DMs to realize that they can change published adventures and give them tools that they can use to do so.



> _How_ to go about it, though - how to know when you might want to, what to consider as you do so - is notably lacking.



Experience makes a big difference.  A new DM will have a more difficult time recognizing when and how to make these changes. After some experience, though, it becomes much easier.


----------



## pemerton

billd91 said:


> Huh, chaochou is complaining about the whim of the DM but apparently you'd rather submit to the whim of the dice? I dunno - which is more predictable to the players giving them a chance to make meaningful choices?



This goes back to my question: what is the job of the players?

Is guessing/inferring what the GM has decided will be the realistic response of the tyrant, or the guards, a meanngful choice? It might be meaningful inference, but if the inference is performed successfully then where is the scope for choice?

Another way of thinking about "meaningful choice" is this: _do I go along with the tyrant, or do I scornfully throw his offer back in his face?_ That's a choice about what sort of person I (as my PC) want to be, and what sorts of things I want to do. And if I choose to be the sort of person who scornfully throws the tyrant's offer back in his face, should it follow without further chance for action declaration that my PC is dead?

Should the game be a puzzle? A game of following others' leads? A chance to express the personality of one's PC? These are real questions.

As for the role of the dice - I think of them as a way of _randomising outcomes_. Roughly speaking: the players want their PCs to succeed; it's the GM's job to establish opposition or adversity; the dice roll tells us, on any given occasion, which it is. That's pretty much been their role since D&D was invented. I don't understand why you would denigrate the use of dice in the way that you do.



billd91 said:


> Playing the mad tyrant according to his well-known personality quirks of being thin-skinned and arresting malcontents or rolling against a list that might make him play completely against personality or include things not at all causally related to the players' decisions like guards being drunk? How are the PCs going to guess anything rational if that's the alternative.



Although you refer to the PCs I think you mean the players. The PCs are making guesses only in imagination. The players are actually deciding what moves to make as they play the game.

And you seem to be assumng that it is the job of the players to guess, or to infer, what it is the GM has in mind. That's one way of playing the game. I don't quite see why you would describe the resulting choices made as _meaningful_. Putting the right number in the sudoku box is a choice, but it's a meaningful one only insofar as if I do it wrong I won't solve the puzzle. Is RPGing puzzle-solving?

As for the idea that a reaction roll might make the tyrant play competely against personality: does this tyrant never laugh? have no friends? who knows everything about a person? In the real world people surprise us, surprise themselves, change even. In fiction the same is true: Saruman was good but turned to evil; Denethro was good but turned to evil; Boromir was good, and died good, but on the way through suffered a fit of evil madness. Gollum nearly spares Frodo - in another world he might have. In a RPG how to we model these aspects of character?

As for the drunk guards, how are the players meant to judge that there are guards, or are not? That they are sober or drunk? That they are loyal or rebellious? I don't see how the guards' drunkenness - were a roll of dice to suggest that that was the case - would be some sort of distinctly aribtrariy or unknowable input into the situation.



billd91 said:


> having the guards arrest an insolent PC isn't the start of violence in this scenario. The PC could have gone along quietly and plotted a daring escape, but like a lot of players do, they overreact when faced with their PCs losing any sense of their physical freedom



This thread is the second in recent times where an OP has explained how s/he had guards arrive to tell the PCs what to do, with the result that the PCs fought their way to freedom, or tried to. In both cases posters referred to the players as having instigated violence. In both cases my response is the same: if the GM in a D&D game has armed NPCs tell the PCs what to do, under (express or implicit) threat of violence, it is the GM who has instigated the violence.

D&D is a game which puts interpersonal violence front-and-centre of both its action resolution mechanics and its fiction. It takes its genre inspiration from fantasy stories in which the protagonists fight rather than surrender. If the players have their PCs surrender to the demon on the 10th level of the dungeon just because the demon tells them to, would anyone consider that good or sensible? In the OP's scenario, how are the players meant to know they can plot a daring escape? The GM hasn't told them that the guards won't kill them. No mechanic is being used to determine what the guards or the king will do with these prisoners. Many posters in this thread are saying that escape would be unrealistic, and that once the guards turn up the execution should simply be narrated by the GM as the inevitable outcome of the players' choice to oppose the tyrant.

How are the players exepcted even to recognise that surrendering is a "meaningful" option?


----------



## pemerton

MGibster said:


> I'm not going to roll dice to determine how an NPC reacts to an insult, to see if the guards answer the call of their boss, or even how the guards are going to respond.  I'm going to play the "king" as I think a power mad egomaniac would react to the situation.



This is why the notion of "meaningful choice" is in my view inapt. This approach to play requires the players to work out - by guesswork or inference - what the GM has in mind in order to have their PCs succeed at their actions. It's RPGIng as a type of puzzle-solving.



prabe said:


> Apparently you'd rather have the events play out in some randomly-determined way that might or might not be coherent with prior events and descriptions.



This is how we work out whether or not a PC beats an orc in a duel. Why is it acceptable there but objectionable in determining whether or not the steely glare and cutting words of a PC cow a NPC. In LotR Aragorn wresteld with Sauron via a palantir and drove him to strike earlier than he intended, with fatal consequences for the latter. How would you do this in a RPG? Woudl the GM have to decide whether or not it is consistent with Sauron's character to feel threatened by Aragorn?



Fanaelialae said:


> If the DM must roll to determine how the NPCs react, does that mean that players must do so as well?
> 
> Does my bard need to roll to see if he's in the mood to flirt with the barmaid? Should the fighter roll to see if he feels like stepping between the wizard and the ogre?
> 
> That sort of thing works for a game like Pendragon (within its own context), but is quite atypical for D&D.



It's not atypical in D&D for the referee to use a dice roll to find out how a NPC reacts. For over a decade the published rules included a reaction table and morale rules. (In D&D these were a semi-integrated system, although I suspect many players did not use all the elements of it, which seem to have been written up more on a conceputal basis than with an eye towards actual play.)

As for the comparison to players: the role of the players and the GM is not the same. To give just one example: If a player wants his/her PC to have a sword, s/he (at a minimum) has to change the number in the GP box on his/her PC sheet. A GM can just add a sword to his/her NPC's equpment list. It's seems absurd to me to express some sort of surprise that the two participant roles might operate under different constraints.


----------



## pemerton

iserith said:


> Flipping through the module, I see on page 105 that it discusses possible reactions by the Baron. While it does not appear to specifically contemplate the PCs accosting him in the manner described, it does say: "If the characters get on his bad side, the baron accuses them of being 'spies of the devil Strahd' and sends twelve guards to arrest them, seize their weapons, and run them out of town."



If that's the case, then why in this thread is everyone taling about execution? Where did that come from?

I still find that a bit aribtrariy without a resolution framework, but it lacks the finality of an execution and is in that sense less objectionalby arbitrary.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> Well the dice are by definition random. I didn't say they were necessarily incoherent; I said they might or might not be. In some circumstances--such as combat--they represent uncertainty and/or imperfect knowledge. In this situation they remain only offer the potential for incoherence (the guards, guarding the notoriously irrational Mad Tyrant, are drunk?).
> 
> Really, though, I was reacting to your refusal to acknowledge the metaphor language of the dice having whims.



The metaphor is not interesting in this context, because we are talking about game play. Tossing a coin to see who gets the choice to bat or field in cricket might involve metaphorical whims, but it is does not involve literal whims which is why that is the method used rather than having a person make the decision. Likewise in lotteries, bingo, some systems for resolving tied elections, etc. Randomisation as an alternative to fiat works precisely because a coin toss or a die throw does not literally involve whim or caprcie.

As to the claim of incoherence, how is it incoherent for the guards to be drunk? Sam and Frodo esapced Cirith Ungol because the guards all killed one another in a fight over treasure - was that incoherent?

Why should the GM's desires for the scene be treated as perfect knowledge? Conversely, why is the GM not permitted to use perect knowledge - eg _this orc captain is undefeatiable, just as the tyrant is uncowable_ - to resolve combat?


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> This is how we work out whether or not a PC beats an orc in a duel. Why is it acceptable there but objectionable in determining whether or not the steely glare and cutting words of a PC cow a NPC?




Because in 5E the DM gets to decide. Maybe he's decided the Mad Tyrant is too Mad (MAD I TELL YOU) to be cowed. In combat I believe the DM has a good deal less freedom to opt-out of die-rolling. There are people who like to roll for social skills; there are people who don't. Either approach can work, but neither is mandatory in 5E.



pemerton said:


> If that's the case, then why in this thread is everyone taling about execution? Where did that come from?
> 
> I still find that a bit aribtrariy without a resolution framework, but it lacks the finality of an execution and is in that sense less objectionalby arbitrary.




The text of the adventure doesn't cover what happens if the PCs try to kill him. I think execution is a reasonable extrapolation.


----------



## aramis erak

pemerton said:


> How are the players exepcted even to recognise that surrendering is a "meaningful" option?



Surrender is ALWAYS a meaningful choice. It's often a quite suboptimal one, tho'.

Surrender as the guards pile in is probably meaningful in a very negative way - character incarceration. If the guards were injured or the king was, it may be a terminal choice. But it's ALWAYS meaningful, as it results in either capture, or a round of post surrender unopposed combat, possibly execution.


Also, your definition of off-screen and mine are obviosuly utterly different. (I wasn't going to reply on just that point.) For me, off screen/off camera mechanical resolution means literally, "Not in a scene, and handled by abstract mechanics." Since you think that's on camera, that renders a huge gaping communications failure point because we are not speaking the same dialect.

The direct film equivalent of the Winter Phase for me is, We see Sir Guy and his lady in the fall, her sewing. When the commercial break is over, we're looking at snowmelt, and his lady is gravid with child, and they're both in new clothes of the fabric she had before the commercial, and a subtitle reads "4 months later..."

That is how I read the winter phase.  A fade to black with the innuendo and/or obvious results later being the equivalent of "roll for horse, child, and wife survival, child birth, harvest and income." If it's relevant to the players, one can explain the results narratively, but there is absolutely ZERO need to do so. We can just pick up with the search for the new wife if the old one died, and the kids seldom matter until their 12th birthday...


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> The metaphor is not interesting in this context, because we are talking about game play. Tossing a coin to see who gets the choice to bat or field in cricket might involve metaphorical whims, but it is does not involve literal whims which is why that is the method used rather than having a person make the decision. Likewise in lotteries, bingo, some systems for resolving tied elections, etc. Randomisation as an alternative to fiat works precisely because a coin toss or a die throw does not literally involve whim or caprcie.




If the DM cannot decide, or chooses not to decide, randomizing options is a valid way of deciding. If the DM can decide and does, so is that.



pemerton said:


> As to the claim of incoherence, how is it incoherent for the guards to be drunk? Sam and Frodo esapced Cirith Ungol because the guards all killed one another in a fight over treasure - was that incoherent?




So, Tolkien was a scholar, and he put a lot of thought and work into his setting. He was neither a master of prose nor a particularly good storyteller. I don't remember LotR being particularly coherent--I remember lots of "singing," and I remember a sense that everything putatively important that happened, I learned about by one character telling another.



pemerton said:


> Why should the GM's desires for the scene be treated as perfect knowledge? Conversely, why is the GM not permitted to use perect knowledge - eg _this orc captain is undefeatiable, just as the tyrant is uncowable_ - to resolve combat?




I don't get the sense that the DM had any particular desires for this scene. I get the sense that the DM and a couple of the players were expecting a scene of negotiation, which *a player* got bored with and disrupted; the DM was wrong-footed and didn't have a lot of guidance from the published adventure, and what happened, happened.

One of the many things that dice can represent in TRPGs is imperfect knowledge. It's why players are willing to accept that their characters don't always "give their best effort" (max the roll). While in 5E, the DM can decide whether an ability check needs to be rolled (can determine auto-success or auto-failure) they cannot do so with attack rolls--and a nat 20 is a success regardless of the target's AC. Deciding the orc captain is unhittable is against the rules of the game; deciding he cannot be placated is not.


----------



## iserith

pemerton said:


> If that's the case, then why in this thread is everyone taling about execution? Where did that come from?




People like killin'.



pemerton said:


> I still find that a bit aribtrariy without a resolution framework, but it lacks the finality of an execution and is in that sense less objectionalby arbitrary.




I would run this with the DMG's social interaction rules which would lend it some structure. If the players are just talking to NPCs, that to me is exposition or possibly color and no mechanics are necessary. If either party wants something from the other that it might not get, then the social interaction rules come into play.


----------



## aramis erak

iserith said:


> I would run this with the DMG's social interaction rules which would lend it some structure. If the players are just talking to NPCs, that to me is exposition or possibly color and no mechanics are necessary. If either party wants something from the other that it might not get, then the social interaction rules come into play.



While the DMG social mechanics are a bit weak, and rather unsubtle, they're quite usable. Especially with the advantage/disadvantage mechanic.

Keep in mind that the best face men can get up to +12 at level 1, and +22 at level 20... being able to get the DC 10 levels is just a matter of having a face man with two buffs (so as to pick the higher), and hitting the 20 with 2 buffs and advantage is very likely to break the 20.

Also note: it's three chunks of a continuous scale - the 20 on indifferent is the 10 on friendly; the 0 on indifferent is the 10 on unfriendly.

Openly hostile or clearly allied should be a further 10 point shift...
One can make it much more subtle by making intermediate steps of slightly friendly and slightly unfriendly...

It's a solid framework.


----------



## iserith

aramis erak said:


> While the DMG social mechanics are a bit weak, and rather unsubtle, they're quite usable. Especially with the advantage/disadvantage mechanic.
> 
> Keep in mind that the best face men can get up to +12 at level 1, and +22 at level 20... being able to get the DC 10 levels is just a matter of having a face man with two buffs (so as to pick the higher), and hitting the 20 with 2 buffs and advantage is very likely to break the 20.
> 
> Also note: it's three chunks of a continuous scale - the 20 on indifferent is the 10 on friendly; the 0 on indifferent is the 10 on unfriendly.
> 
> Openly hostile or clearly allied should be a further 10 point shift...
> One can make it much more subtle by making intermediate steps of slightly friendly and slightly unfriendly...
> 
> It's a solid framework.




Yes, I put these rules in the category of "Good Enough," and there's enough flexibility in them to structure a social interaction challenge, particularly as the objections or arguments the NPC raises can be the obstacles to overcome to move the needle on their attitude. Then it's just a matter of increasing or decreasing the number of objections or arguments to adjust the difficulty of the challenge.

I also shut down "Work Together" in social interaction challenges. The way to get advantage, generally, is to identify the NPC's agenda, ideal, bond, and/or flaw then exploit those when responding to the objection or argument. This also creates something for characters with at least some Wisdom or training in Insight to do to help support others who might be doing the talking.


----------



## pemerton

billd91 said:


> The mad tyrant is fairly well-defined in the source material - well defined, enough, that believing that he'd laugh off the PC's insult is out of the picture. He's also well-defined enough that it's pretty easy for the PCs to learn what to expect when they enter into any kind of negotiation with him and avoid really stupid decisions
> 
> <snip>
> 
> That kind of precludes "any number of reactions" being supported - some of them would just be unreasonably unpredictable from the standpoint of a player trying to actually do a good job and interacting with the environment around them in a constructive manner.



There could hardly be a clearer statement than this of the idea that _the job of the PCs is to guess or infer the fiction and on that basis to solve the puzzle._


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> This goes back to my question: what is the job of the players?




Isn't that kind of up to them? Presumably, they entered into some kind of negotiation with the burgomaster for a reason. For the scene in question, achieving the result they wanted from the burgomaster would be their current job.



pemerton said:


> Is guessing/inferring what the GM has decided will be the realistic response of the tyrant, or the guards, a meanngful choice? It might be meaningful inference, but if the inference is performed successfully then where is the scope for choice?




Depends on what they're negotiating for. They have a pretty broad set of choices in front of them that *don't* involve 1) insulting him, 2) trying to take him hostage - either of which should have had fairly predictable negative results (particularly the second).



pemerton said:


> Another way of thinking about "meaningful choice" is this: _do I go along with the tyrant, or do I scornfully throw his offer back in his face?_ That's a choice about what sort of person I (as my PC) want to be, and what sorts of things I want to do. And if I choose to be the sort of person who scornfully throws the tyrant's offer back in his face, should it follow without further chance for action declaration that my PC is dead?




Since the OP made no implication that the PC would be dead with no further chance for action declaration - that's pretty much a non-starter as an argument. But of course a player could choose to play a PC who throws the tyrant's offer back in his face scornfully - but should he not expect to suffer the predictable consequences? Or should those consequences be unrelated to the established nature of the tyrant or not based on the scornful rejection? If they are, then what's the point of knowing anything or even trying to make rational choices?
Of course, a player could choose to play their PCs in a non-scornful manner or at least intelligent enough to swallow the scorn and turn down the tyrant's offer in a more deferential manner and then take his frustrations out on something else later once the negotiations have been peacefully completed, even if not successfully.



pemerton said:


> Should the game be a puzzle? A game of following others' leads? A chance to express the personality of one's PC? These are real questions.




In most cases, I would figure it's a mixture -  there will be puzzles such as how to topple/defeat Strahd (at least in the short term), there will be chances to express the PC's personality, and there will be times when making an ill-considered choice should have negative consequences.



pemerton said:


> As for the role of the dice - I think of them as a way of _randomising outcomes_. Roughly speaking: the players want their PCs to succeed; it's the GM's job to establish opposition or adversity; the dice roll tells us, on any given occasion, which it is. That's pretty much been their role since D&D was invented. I don't understand why you would denigrate the use of dice in the way that you do.




Sure, but another aspect of D&D is the possibility of skilled play - and that sometimes means the players making choices that indicate their PC's actually understand the world around them and experience it as though it were real to them with real cause and effect and consequences for the things they do.



pemerton said:


> Although you refer to the PCs I think you mean the players. The PCs are making guesses only in imagination. The players are actually deciding what moves to make as they play the game.




That's really a pointlessly pedantic nitpick since you knew exactly what I meant.



pemerton said:


> And you seem to be assumng that it is the job of the players to guess, or to infer, what it is the GM has in mind. That's one way of playing the game. I don't quite see why you would describe the resulting choices made as _meaningful_. Putting the right number in the sudoku box is a choice, but it's a meaningful one only insofar as if I do it wrong I won't solve the puzzle. Is RPGing puzzle-solving?




I don't assume it's a question of inferring what the DM is thinking. A meaningful choice is one that is taken with a reasonable understanding of the expected consequences - consequences that will be distinct from the ones you'd face if you made a significantly different choice. If the outcome isn't related to the choice being made, like the thin-skinned tyrant just laughing it off when insulted or the guards were too drunk to make an arrest, what kind of meaning would it have? None, it's just a thing that happened, and not really a result of a player's choice.


----------



## FrogReaver

chaochou said:


> What resolution mechanics were involved in:
> a) deciding the reaction of the king
> b) resolving that the ensuing reaction resulted in execution
> 
> I dont see any mechanics at all, just GM whim.




Ah, but some may view GM whim as a mechanic in its own right.


----------



## pemerton

Ovinomancer said:


> This has the hallmarks of a common problem, both in printed adventures and in homebrew:  the personalities involved are meant to be an interesting encounter but are written in a fixed state, leaving no real out from the initial situation.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I so wish adventure designers would stop thinking they're so clever by putting in these 'compromise' situations.  So many don't play to compromise, but to triumph over evil, and these things always cause problems.



A related criticism: placing a notional dynamic situation with the expectation that the players will adopt one anticipated approach to resolving the situation.

It's possible to do differently in adventure design. An exmaple is The Demon of the Red Grove by Robin Laws, in the early 2000s HeroWars Narrator's Guide. There are two practical consequences of this:

(1) the adventure is shorter in its number of scenes - roughly, there is the framing and then the climax and then suggestions around the different ways it might play out (with resolution notes for each). 

(2) Some of what is described as possible action in the adventure will not be used by any given group - as the different resolutions are mutually exclusive.

The bits that won't be used aren't therefore irrelevant, as they are used to help spell out context and personality for the adventure - stuff which in a different design might be presented as background rather than consequence-narration.

As you (Ovinomancer) know well, it's also possible to integrate different sorts of approach to scenario or campaign design with different sorts of mechanics to support dynamic play.


----------



## Umbran

Fenris-77 said:


> I feel like there's room for a short 3PP monograph here




Probably, yeah.  I am not _criticizing_ the DMG for not having it.  There's only so much you can put in one book. 

But, that also means that one cannot expect that folks will just do the thing that seems obvious, but isn't really covered in any depth in the book, because maybe nobody taught them how.


----------



## Myth Master

Ralif Redhammer said:


> How do I make it still be fun for everyone (including myself)?




I'm sorry, but consequences for situations this dire are not supposed to "fun", at least not for the players who jumped feet-first into this insane act. Giving the consequences a twist to make them humorous (only darkly so) for those not in gaol is an option, but not a necessity.
The two engineered a deadly situation they were warned against to start with. This is a chore for the GM, even if one that the GM might find a twist to make amusing from his own perspective. That king, according to the description given, sharply punishes anyone who even disagrees with his policies, much less those attempting his MURDER.
The least they should have coming to them is losing their (primary weapon-) hand or being hobbled in at least one leg (ankle or knee joints purposefully broken by a barber-surgeon and allowed to heal in such a way that they are hindered in walking and prohibited from running. These should be recoverable after one, maybe two quests, but not immediately recoverable. They could be maimed and then assigned to the custody/service of a favored and trusted courtier, leaving a number of ways out to continue with whatever business the campaign was about before the incident. BUT the miscreants need time to live with the consequences first. It might just be simpler and cleaner to hang them (the headsman's axe or sword is a courtesy reserved for those of noble rank).
Either way, if it is not redressed with consequences that match the direness of attempted regicide (that's what it's called), they won't believe that there are any real consequences to their actions, and any attempt to apply such in response to later incidents will be deemed "unfair" – as pointed out above.


----------



## Myth Master

Numidius said:


> The sentiment and inconsiderate actions of the two arrogant pc's should resonate in a lot of people in that kingdom. I would let consequences happen that involve the situation/setting/factions all around.




Inconsiderate? Are you kidding me? Attempted regicide is "inconsiderate"? omfg


----------



## Myth Master

Mallus said:


> Sounds like the perfect time to introduce a group of rebels talented enough to pull off a daring daytime rescue but with several key leadership positions unfilled!
> 
> Not the end of a campaign, just an unforeseen plot-twist. Remember, it's not realism so much as verisimilitude to pulp adventure stories we're aiming for (usually).
> 
> I mean, if a hot-headed hero can't pull a shiv on a terrible king, why are we even playing?




Because, for it to be even the the least tiny bit believable, they should have died at the hands of the dozens of armed and armored guards in and surrounding the audience chamber/throne hall if they had succeeded. Those were the guys that clapped the failed assassins' in irons as the king directed. This is a powerful ruler ... in his own home ... surrounded by just about every official and noble in the kingdom of any status, who all depend on him for their continued well-being.


----------



## chaochou

Myth Master said:


> I'm sorr,y but consequences for situations this dire are not supposed to "fun", at least not for the players...
> 
> Snipped for the sake of sanity, and repeating such appalling rubbish.




This advice Is beyond bad. Its like anti-roleplaying.

It’s what to do if you aspire to be the worst GM ever.


----------



## Numidius

Myth Master said:


> Inconsiderate? Are you kidding me? Attempted regicide is "inconsiderate"? omfg



Ah ah! Not exactly a king, btw. Moreover when when a missing PC arrived put the guards on fire by magic  Just like that


----------



## billd91

Numidius said:


> Ah ah! Not exactly a king, btw. Moreover when when a missing PC arrived put the guards on fire by magic  Just like that




True, not exactly a king. But if Myth Master hadn't been following the thread religiously and learned it was a burgomaster, it's certainly not a stretch to assume "mad tyrant" meant someone of a kingly level. When the thread started, I assumed it was a king as well. But still, laying hands on one with a blade in order to take him hostage is not likely to lead to good results. 

And in response to the idea of making the issue/consequences "fun" - it's incumbent on the players to also work to make situations fun. You give fun input, you should get fun output. Put with problematic input, maybe the outcome isn't going to be so much fun... now. But it might end up being a fun table tale in later years as long as it ends up being memorable. I'm guessing being held in the stocks and executed could have been one of those memorable moments.


----------



## Fenris-77

Umbran said:


> Probably, yeah.  I am not _criticizing_ the DMG for not having it.  There's only so much you can put in one book.
> 
> But, that also means that one cannot expect that folks will just do the thing that seems obvious, but isn't really covered in any depth in the book, because maybe nobody taught them how.



Both fair points. The DMG _could_ have had this, but I'm not really criticizing it for not having it. Not specifically in regards to handling published modules anyway. I do perhaps have some criticism for the DMG for not having a clearer statement of what it means to DM, and what range of actions and responsibilities that entails I suppose. When I look at similar sections from other games its a page or three at most, and considering how central it is to the game, I think room could have been found for it. You're right though, if no one tells a new DM they can, and should, do X in situation Y, then one cannot expect that DM to simply divine that option from reading the Aethric currents or the entrails of a goat. That's why it's good to have sites like this one, where a new DM can post questions and have them answered by a slew of grumpy and disreputable looking veterans.


----------



## pemerton

Retreater said:


> I just want the consequences of their actions to have ramifications and I don't want to coddle them if they make rash decisions.



I don't see how it would be "coddling" to use action resolution mechanics to see what happens when the PCs disagree with and then threaten the NPC.



billd91 said:


> in response to the idea of making the issue/consequences "fun" - it's incumbent on the players to also work to make situations fun. You give fun input, you should get fun output. Put with problematic input, maybe the outcome isn't going to be so much fun... now. But it might end up being a fun table tale in later years as long as it ends up being memorable. I'm guessing being held in the stocks and executed could have been one of those memorable moments.



I've never met an RPGer who plays the game so as to have memories years later of the time when their PC was executed because the GM decided that was what made sense.


----------



## pemerton

billd91 said:


> True, not exactly a king. But if Myth Master hadn't been following the thread religiously and learned it was a burgomaster, it's certainly not a stretch to assume "mad tyrant" meant someone of a kingly level. When the thread started, I assumed it was a king as well. But still, laying hands on one with a blade in order to take him hostage is not likely to lead to good results.



In real life, mediaeval kings were killed in battle and were taken hostage (I'm thinking of King Richard as an example of the latter).

In fantasy literature, kings are killed (eg Conan killed the king of Aquilonia and thereby became king himself). Or not always obeyed - Denethor (a steward who is functionally a king) is disobeyed by Pippin and Gandalf and they are not executed. And one of his guard - Beregond - joins them in that disobedience.

This is why I find the idea that it would be "unrealistic" or "incoherent" for the players to succeed in the OP's situation, or for the guards to do something other than just obey the commands given, quite unwarranted.



prabe said:


> So, Tolkien was a scholar, and he put a lot of thought and work into his setting. He was neither a master of prose nor a particularly good storyteller. I don't remember LotR being particularly coherent--I remember lots of "singing," and I remember a sense that everything putatively important that happened, I learned about by one character telling another.



On the issue of LotR's coherence, I'll refer you to Shippey's _The Road to Middle Earth _and leave it at that.

The idea that something has gone wrong in a FRPG if it has moments that resemble LotR - to me that seems ridiculous!


----------



## Umbran

pemerton said:


> I don't see how it would be "coddling" to use action resolution mechanics to see what happens when the PCs disagree with and then threaten the NPC.




Players are supposed to make informed choices of the chances and consequences, right?  Then the argument of using action resolution is only solid if the players knew about the resolution mechanics _before_ they chose their actions.  Since they were not in play at the time their actions were declared, instituting them afterwards would be just another DM whim.  

So, at best your point becomes "you should only play games where the reaction of NPCs is based on action resolution."  Which.. is kind of One True Wayist.


----------



## jasper

iserith said:


> Nobody reads the DMG, especially DMs.



Liar lair lair pants on fire. I read it cover to cover during the second week of the lockdown. Yes I was bored.


----------



## chaochou

billd91 said:


> But still, laying hands on one with a blade in order to take him hostage is not likely to lead to good results.




And yet where the likelihood of things is in doubt you seem incapable of accepting the use of mecanical resolution, rather than GM railroading, to determine outcomes. Why am I not surprised?


----------



## pemerton

iserith said:


> I would run this with the DMG's social interaction rules which would lend it some structure. If the players are just talking to NPCs, that to me is exposition or possibly color and no mechanics are necessary. If either party wants something from the other that it might not get, then the social interaction rules come into play.



This sounds pretty sensible to me. Although in some contexts (and some systems - I know you've got 5e D&D in mind but our thinking about RPGing can be helped by a range of comparisons) I think it can make sense to see if a NPC is spontaneously hostile or generous. A related idea is @Hriston upthread referring to setting the baseline attitude via random roll.



billd91 said:


> a player could choose to play a PC who throws the tyrant's offer back in his face scornfully - but should he not expect to suffer the predictable consequences? Or should those consequences be unrelated to *the established nature of the tyrant* or not based on the scornful rejection? If they are, then what's the point of knowing anything or even trying to make rational choices?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't assume it's a question of inferring *what the DM is thinking*. A meaningful choice is one that is taken with a reasonable understanding of the expected consequences - consequences that will be distinct from the ones you'd face if you made a significantly different choice. If the outcome isn't related to the choice being made, like the thin-skinned tyrant just laughing it off when insulted or the guards were too drunk to make an arrest, what kind of meaning would it have?



I've highlighted two noun phrases. _Where is it it established that the tyrant will respond to scornful rejection by calling for the guards?_ As far as I can tell, _in the mind of the GM_. Nowhere else. This is what the players are expected to infer.

What makes a choice meaningful, in my view, is not _the consequence that follows from it _but the fact that _it engages the fiction and tries to push it forward in a distinctive way_. That's why choosing to confront the tyrant rather than go along with him is meaningful; just as the other choice would be also.

As for the idea that the GM _has to _insist that the tyrant has obedient guards ready to hand because _otherwise_ s/he could not impose the "meaningful consequence" of being arrested by them after the tyrant callis for them when confronted: how is that anything but circular reasoning to justify a railroad? If the module writer hadn't included them, then the GM would have to write them in or else who know what the players might get away with!



prabe said:


> Because in 5E the DM gets to decide. Maybe he's decided the Mad Tyrant is too Mad (MAD I TELL YOU) to be cowed. In combat I believe the DM has a good deal less freedom to opt-out of die-rolling.





prabe said:


> If the DM cannot decide, or chooses not to decide, randomizing options is a valid way of deciding. If the DM can decide and does, so is that.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> While in 5E, the DM can decide whether an ability check needs to be rolled (can determine auto-success or auto-failure) they cannot do so with attack rolls--and a nat 20 is a success regardless of the target's AC. Deciding the orc captain is unhittable is against the rules of the game; deciding he cannot be placated is not.



So I had a quick look at the Basic PDF for 5e.

On pp 57-58, 62 I found this:

Each of a creature’s abilities has a score, a number that defines the magnitude of that ability. An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature’s training and competence in activities related to that ability. . . . An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. . . .​​Each ability covers a broad range of capabilities, including skills that a character or a monster can be proficient in. A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score, and an individual’s proficiency in a skill demonstrates a focus on that aspect. . . .​​Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality. . . . A Charisma check might arise when you try to influence or entertain others, when you try to make an impression or tell a convincing lie, or when you are navigating a tricky social situation. . . .​​When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check. . . . When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check.​
Now it's true that p 58 also says that "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." But I would take it as obvious that the GM is meant to make that decision havng regard to the text I already quoted, as well as to what will make for satisfying play.

So the GM might decide (say) that it is impossible to influence a zombie or skeleton via threats, because they are mindless undead which have no heed to their own physical integrity. Or the GM might decide that an otyugh is not amenable to influence via tact or social graces, because it's an otyugh. But nothing there suggests to me that the GM should decide that an ordinary human being can't be influenced because _the GM thinks it would make for a better story if that doesn't happen_. Or because _the GM thinks it would make more sense for the NPC not to be influenced_.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> {snip}
> Now it's true that p 58 also says that "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." But I would take it as obvious that the GM is meant to make that decision havng regard to the text I already quoted, as well as to what will make for satisfying play.
> 
> 
> So the GM might decide (say) that it is impossible to influence a zombie or skeleton via threats, because they are mindless undead which have no heed to their own physical integrity. Or the GM might decide that an otyugh is not amenable to influence via tact or social graces, because it's an otyugh. But nothing there suggests to me that the GM should decide that an ordinary human being can't be influenced because _the GM thinks it would make for a better story if that doesn't happen_. Or because _the GM thinks it would make more sense for the NPC not to influenced_.




Three things.

First, I don't think I said that the DM *had to* decide the NPC in this case couldn't be persuaded not to have the PCs executed. I think my position has been pretty consistent that the DM *could* decide that, and has rules support to do so. Whether it's good or bad DMing is probably  a matter of taste.

Second, *the rules you quoted* strongly imply the possibility that the outcome might not be uncertain. The judgment on that is left to the DM. Do you think it *doesn't* make sense that a Mad Tyrant might not be in a mental place to listen to reason after being insulted then attacked *in his chambers*?

Third, I think it's possible the DM *has* allowed the Mad Tyrant to be placated somewhat--he didn't have the other PCs arrested, after all, after what the OP described as (probably paraphrasing) "excellent die rolls and good roleplay."


----------



## Umbran

chaochou said:


> And yet where the likelihood of things is in doubt you seem incapable of accepting the use of mecanical resolution, rather than GM railroading, to determine outcomes. Why am I not surprised?




*Mod Note:*

If you want to make this personal, you can be removed from the discussion right now to save everyone a lot of time and annoyance.


----------



## iserith

pemerton said:


> This sounds pretty sensible to me. Although in some contexts (and some systems - I know you've got 5e D&D in mind but our thinking about RPGing can be helped by a range of comparisons) I think it can make sense to see if a NPC is spontaneously hostile or generous. A related idea is @Hriston upthread referring to setting the baseline attitude via random roll.




It's a D&D 5e adventure.



pemerton said:


> So I had a quick look at the Basic PDF for 5e.
> 
> On pp 57-58, 62 I found this:
> 
> Each of a creature’s abilities has a score, a number that defines the magnitude of that ability. An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature’s training and competence in activities related to that ability. . . . An ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge. . . .​​Each ability covers a broad range of capabilities, including skills that a character or a monster can be proficient in. A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score, and an individual’s proficiency in a skill demonstrates a focus on that aspect. . . .​​Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality. . . . A Charisma check might arise when you try to influence or entertain others, when you try to make an impression or tell a convincing lie, or when you are navigating a tricky social situation. . . .​​When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check. . . . When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check.​
> Now it's true that p 58 also says that "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." But I would take it as obvious that the GM is meant to make that decision havng regard to the text I already quoted, as well as to what will make for satisfying play.
> 
> So the GM might decide (say) that it is impossible to influence a zombie or skeleton via threats, because they are mindless undead which have no heed to their own physical integrity. Or the GM might decide that an otyugh is not amenable to influence via tact or social graces, because it's an otyugh. But nothing there suggests to me that the GM should decide that an ordinary human being can't be influenced because _the GM thinks it would make for a better story if that doesn't happen_. Or because _the GM thinks it would make more sense for the NPC not to be influenced_.




DMG, p. 237 goes on to say that the DM decides if the proposed task falls somewhere between _trivially easy_ and _impossible _and if there's a _meaningful consequence for failure_, then some kind of roll is appropriate. The DM decides whether those criteria were met. If the DM decides there either is not the case, then there's no roll and the DM proceeds to step 3 in the play loop which is the DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Whether or not the DM analyzed this situation thoroughly before narrating, in this specific case, the DM effectively decided that achieving whatever goal the player had in mind via his stated approach was impossible. Thus, no roll. This is perfectly in line with the rules.


----------



## billd91

chaochou said:


> And yet where the likelihood of things is in doubt you seem incapable of accepting the use of mecanical resolution, rather than GM railroading, to determine outcomes. Why am I not surprised?




The OP said the PC tried to grapple... and failed. That mechanical enough for you? I've been saying right along that the PCs could have tried something to escape their fate but that it should come from them not a deus ex machina. They didn't, expressly in at least one case. If the players aren't going to give the DM anything to go on, that seems pretty final to me.

What I do have a problem with is cooking up a mechanical resolution for determining the burgomaster's reaction to the PC-based effrontery when it's completely unnecessary and potentially counterproductive. He's already arresting malcontents and putting them in the stocks. Why would he do anything different? Why would it be better for that evidence to not be indicative of what the burgomaster would do if faced with the same opposition from the PCs?


----------



## pemerton

iserith said:


> DMG, p. 237 goes on to say that the DM decides if the proposed task falls somewhere between _trivially easy_ and _impossible _and if there's a _meaningful consequence for failure_, then some kind of roll is appropriate. The DM decides whether those criteria were met. If the DM decides there either is not the case, then there's no roll and the DM proceeds to step 3 in the play loop which is the DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Whether or not the DM analyzed this situation thoroughly before narrating, in this specific case, the DM effectively decided that achieving whatever goal the player had in mind via his stated approach was impossible. Thus, no roll. This is perfectly in line with the rules.



My point is that the GM is not - as best I can tell - expected to make that decision arbitrarily, or without having regard to the rest of the rules which (among other things) tell us what ability scores represent and what ability checks are for.

I particularly don't see how _the possibility of a meaningful consequence for failure_ - which there clearly was in this case - can be a basis for deciding that an action fails without calling for a check.

And I don't see that it is good GMing to decide that a task is impossible when there is no reason in genre or logic for it to be so, and when - as appeared to happen in this case - it will create a less-than-satsifactory experience to so decide.



prabe said:


> First, I don't think I said that the DM *had to* decide the NPC in this case couldn't be persuaded not to have the PCs executed. I think my position has been pretty consistent that the DM *could* decide that, and has rules support to do so. Whether it's good or bad DMing is probably  a matter of taste.



I thought the topic of this thread is - roughly, and perhaps among other things - what makes for good or bad GMing. As @hawkeyefan postred upthread, the OP has a hint at least that the GM wasn't fully satisfied with how things played out.

Nothing I've read in the Basic PDF suggests that the GM should make decisions in an unpricpled way. What are the principles? Well in the PDF p 2 says the following:

Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.​
For me, key words are _together _and _everyone_. The GM should be making decisions about when to allow a possibility of success having regard to the group nature of the roleplaying adventure. It doesn't seem consistent with those principles, to me at least, for a nefarious villain to end an adventurer's life because of a unilateral decision by a GM that a player's action declaration for his/her PC could not succeed. Not when the rules clearly provide a device for determining whether or not an attempt to influence a NPC succeeds - that is, by way of a CHA check.



prabe said:


> *the rules you quoted* strongly imply the possibility that the outcome might not be uncertain. The judgment on that is left to the DM. Do you think it *doesn't* make sense that a Mad Tyrant might not be in a mental place to listen to reason after being insulted then attacked *in his chambers*?



Sure it might be possible. Equally it might not be so - maybe the tyrant _can _be influenced. _That's what the dice roll is for_. If the check fails, now we know that the tyrant is not in a mental place to listen to reason.

But the principles I just quotd don't say_ the GM should decide what is or isn't possible based on his/her sense of what is likely_, let alone _what is possible_ or _what s/he wants to have happen_. They talk about _together _creating an exciting and memorable story, and thereby having a good time.

The OP makes it clear that that episode of play did not lead unequivocally to everyone having a good time. Hence this thread. Hence my posts.


----------



## Umbran

billd91 said:


> Why would it be better for that evidence to not be indicative of what the burgomaster would do if faced with the same opposition from the PCs?




In fact, very specifically, if you are using mechanical resolution, you are supposed to inform the players of the stakes.  That indication is doing exactly that - the players are informed that their life and liberty may be at stake.  So, they already know what can happen if they choose poorly.

They chose poorly.  In effect, they tried an intimidate check that the GM determined was not possible for them to succeed at - well within the GM's rights in mechanical resolution systems.

So, by the basics of mechanical resolution, we know something bad is going to happen to the PCs.  This whole discussion is over exactly which bad thing the GM will choose to apply - it isn't like mechanical resolution would say, in detail, "He throws them in the stocks," or, "He has them flogged," or, "He has them executed at dawn."  A mechanical resolution would typically say, "They failed badly.  _Figure out what that reasonably means in your fiction_."

This entire discussion seems really to be about that last step, while several of you are arguing several steps prior.

Edit to add: I can totally see this scene happenign just as described in a Fate game that had a social stress track - in which this is certainly a mechanical determination. The PCs enter a conflict, start to lose.  Two of them concede (and negotiate a retreat, failing to get what htey want, but get away with their lives), the other two get Taken Out.  This specifically and explicitly gives their opposition the choice of what ultimately happens to them - they can die, or not.  GM's choice.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer

It's easy enough to tell someone on the internet to go kill the characters for their crimes. It's another for the DM to do so with players that are likely friends in varying degrees. Sure, character death can be fun in the hands of a good DM and player, but most of the time, it's a bummer. If people aren't having fun (and granted, this should also include the DM), why are they going to play in that DM's game? Gone are the days when a person is stuck in a game because they're the only DM available.

Sure, throw them in jail, awaiting execution. Then give them the opportunity for an exciting jailbreak. If you really want to chop off their hand, you could do so, but then have them hear about a magical prosthetic to quest for. As long as you have the trust of your players, you can have these sorts of highs and lows. But just killing off the characters, that's hard to come back from, even with that player trust.



Myth Master said:


> I'm sorry, but consequences for situations this dire are not supposed to "fun", at least not for the players who jumped feet-first into this insane act.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> My point is that the GM is not - as best I can tell - expected to make that decision arbitrarily, or without having regard to the rest of the rules which (among other things) tell us what ability scores represent and what ability checks are for.
> 
> I particularly don't see how _the possibility of a meaningful consequence for failure_ - which there clearly was in this case - can be a basis for deciding that an action fails without calling for a check.






> But nothing there suggests to me that the GM should decide that an ordinary human being can't be influenced because _the GM thinks it would make for a better story if that doesn't happen_. *Or because the GM thinks it would make more sense for the NPC not to be influenced. *




Simply being human does not mean that there is always some small chance success.  If the DM thinks that it makes more sense that there is no chance, then there is no chance.  Other rules in the game are not relevant to that decision as such a decision is based on the DM's knowledge of the NPC.

For example, I don't care how good a talker your PC is, you are not going to have a roll to persuade the merchant you just met to give you the contents of his store and warehouse for free.  There is no other rule that has any bearing on that.  It simply makes more sense that you have no chance to achieve such a nonsensical result, so you get no roll.


----------



## iserith

pemerton said:


> My point is that the GM is not - as best I can tell - expected to make that decision arbitrarily, or without having regard to the rest of the rules which (among other things) tell us what ability scores represent and what ability checks are for.
> 
> I particularly don't see how _the possibility of a meaningful consequence for failure_ - which there clearly was in this case - can be a basis for deciding that an action fails without calling for a check.
> 
> And I don't see that it is good GMing to decide that a task is impossible when there is no reason in genre or logic for it to be so, and when - as appeared to happen in this case - it will create a less-than-satsifactory experience to so decide.




It may not be what you want to hear, but the DM can make the decision as to the uncertainty of the outcome or the existence of a meaningful consequence for failure by whatever means he or she wants. There is no roll except by the DM's leave. Different DMs will make different calls here and none would be wrong. Some calls may result in the group failing to achieve the goals of play - that is, everyone having a good time and creating an exciting, memorable story by playing - but we don't know that this is the case here.


----------



## Fenris-77

@iserith - Wrong? Maybe not, but better or worse? Sure, some of those DM calls will be better or worse, for a host of potential different reason. A lot depends on meeting the table expectations, maybe more than any particular opinion on example X or Y. If the DM makes a call that is in keeping with how play normally proceeds at the table he plays with, and is one that makes sense in terms of the pre-existing fictional context (i.e follows from the fiction) then it's probably a fine call, whether I personally agree with it or not. However, when the DM or the players depart from the table conventions things quickly start to unwind.

In pretty much every case the first litmus test I would use would be the question _Does the ruling present interesting ways to move the fiction forward? _ If the answer is yes then the goals of play you list are probably being met. This does depend on the players buying in of course. One of things I don't really get about the situation in the OP is that several narrative lifelines were thrown to the PCs, with very little interest taken in them. That indexes a potential case of bad faith play, although without more specifics it is, as you say, hard to tell.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> This to me conflates two separate and disconnected issues: mechanics use and end satisfaction.
> 
> Sure, what happened from the NPC side was completely within the DM's power to control.  And in hindsight maybe the DM wasn't too pleased with what he-she did with it and how it all shook down - we've probably all had those moments more often that we'd care to admit  - but that's much the same as a DM making any other call and later realizing it could have been done better: live with it and move on.
> 
> Had some systemized mechanics been used there's nothing saying they couldn't have led to the exact same outcome, and what then?  Does the DM blame the mechanics for leading to an unsatisfactory result?




So there have been a lot of posts since I was last watching the thread. I'm catching up now, but I wanted to reply to you in regard to this last bit of your post.

To go back to the trap example; let's say a PC searches the door (or whatever) and triggers a trap, and the DM decides, "there's no reasonable way you can avoid what happens.....your PC is dead."

I think many would argue that, under some "DM has final word" type of caveat, that this is well within what can happen at the table. But I know many folks, even those who might say that yes the DM can decide such, would be very annoyed if this is how it was handled at the table.

So the question is whether this is as preferable as the PC being allowed a saving throw, and then consulting the results of what happens on a success or failure of that saving throw? Such a system is in place to create a clear process about what happens under these circumstances. So when it does happen, it's understandable why it's happened, and it doesn't boil down to "the DM decided this is what happens". It's much more consistent in that regard.

I don't think that social interactions need mechanics for every little thing or anything like that.....but if PC execution is being put forth as a possible result, then I think having rules that allow for a clear process of how we end with that result is preferable to relying almost purely on DM whim.


----------



## iserith

Fenris-77 said:


> @iserith - Wrong? Maybe not, but better or worse? Sure, some of those DM calls will be better or worse, for a host of potential different reason. A lot depends on meeting the table expectations, maybe more than any particular opinion on example X or Y. If the DM makes a call that is in keeping with how play normally proceeds at the table he plays with, and is one that makes sense in terms of the pre-existing fictional context (i.e follows from the fiction) then it's probably a fine call, whether I personally agree with it or not. However, when the DM or the players depart from the table conventions things quickly start to unwind.
> 
> In pretty much every case the first litmus test I would use would be the question _Does the ruling present interesting ways to move the fiction forward? _ If the answer is yes then the goals of play you list are probably being met. This does depend on the players buying in of course. One of things I don't really get about the situation in the OP is that several narrative lifelines were thrown to the PCs, with very little interest taken in them. That indexes a potential case of bad faith play, although without more specifics it is, as you say, hard to tell.




It appears you are more or less restating what I said after the word "wrong" in my last post. Whether something is fun, exciting, and memorable is table-dependent. The poster to which I was responding was using rules to justify a position, while failing to quote the entirety of the rules that explains the DM's role in adjudication. In that context, the DM is not "wrong," but as I go on to say, this is independent from whether the goals of play are achieved.


----------



## Fenris-77

iserith said:


> It appears you are more or less restating what I said after the word "wrong" in my last post. Whether something is fun, exciting, and memorable is table-dependent. The poster to which I was responding was using rules to justify a position, while failing to quote the entirety of the rules that explains the DM's role in adjudication. In that context, the DM is not "wrong," but as I go on to say, this is independent from whether the goals of play are achieved.



You said the following:


iserith said:


> Different DMs will make different calls here and none would be wrong.



I was expanding on this notion, and outlining a bunch of areas in which it could be _bad_, without being wrong. The tone of your posts seemed to suggest that whatever the DM decided would be right (i.e. not wrong) and isn't at all how I'd choose to descibe it. I think that value judgments, like good and bad, probably better describe the spectrum of possibilities than do right and wrong. Relative of course to the individual table and the goals of play for that table.

I think we agree, but a casual read of your first post might not suggest that. Hence my reply.


----------



## Umbran

Fenris-77 said:


> I was expanding on this notion, and outlining a bunch of areas in which it could be _bad_, without being wrong.




I think everyone here can at least vaguely understand the concept of the difference between the Law-Chaos axis and the Good-Evil axis.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Ovinomancer said:


> Actually, I kinda think presenting multiple bad options as decided by the GM without player choices leading into them as not really consequences that matter -- if your option is choose this consequence or that one and you didn't get a say in being in that spot to begin with, it's not much of a consequence so much as the GM fiat enforcing a situation.
> 
> Now, I get what you're aiming at, I think, which is that hard choices are okay, and I agree. I don't think the presentation of Vallaki is a reasonable hard choice, though, as there's no way through the written material that achieves any good outcome and most result in the town turning against you.  And, as you say, the fact that it's written this way in the module is not a requirement for a GM to run it that way, but that expects not the usual level of customization necessary but that you will wholly rewrite something that a professional presented.  That's a high hurdle.  Granted, I pretty much read anything pre-written by someone else and gut it, taking only the bits I like, but I've got that experience.  The point of a module is that these things are supposedly written by a professional and present a reasonable situation.




I think I generally agree with you in this regard, and I think this is a really relevant point. The only way I disagree is that this situation largely worked for my group because the way I kind of framed things was that there was no clear favorable outcome available to the PCs, and that this speaks largely to the overall situation in Barovia. The land is corrupted, and things can't really be fixed until you deal with the actual cause of that corruption.....Strahd himself. So in that sense, it worked for my group. I think that it helped that they're all familiar with Ravenloft and the general themes and concepts at play. I agree that under normal circumstances, this kind of no win situation can be an obstacle to satisfying play.

My PCs behaved very largely in a way as described in the OP, although I hope and suspect it was not out of boredom. At one of the festivals of the sun, I played out the burgomaster punishing a villager for some minor infraction. A total injustice. The PCs saw this and reacted. At this point, they were known about town as outsiders (which is kind of a big deal in Barovia, I think) and as capable outsiders.

They tried to reason with him....it was like bashing their heads into a brick wall, and they quickly realized this. Things escalated. The fighter said that if anyone of the burgomaster's men made a move, he'd respond in kind. The other PCs agreed and got ready. It wound up being a showdown between the fighter and Izek Strazni, the burgomaster's champion. The fighter PC won. 

Once that happened, the burgomaster retreated to his manor behind some of his guards. The PCs didn't even both pursuing him at that point. I figured that Izek (clearly the most physically powerful person in the town prior to the PCs' arrival) being killed would pretty much be a major blow to the burgomaster's grip on the town. The PCs left soon thereafter, realizing that if they didn't get rid of Strahd, nothing good would ever really happen in these lands. 

When they eventually made their way back to Vallaki, they saw the burgomaster's body hanging in the town square and signs that there had been fighting around town. They didn't linger long enough to really even investigate what had happened, but I had figured that the Strahd-sympathetic lady (her name escapes me) had taken the loss of Izek as her cue to make her move, and she took over. 

I expect that my experience with this whole scenario is why I'm questioning so much how it played out in the OP's game. I do think that the players not all being on the same page is a big part of why things went south, and I do understand that a player having his character do something solely out of boredom can be problematic.....but I can't look at it as a case of that player being solely to blame.


----------



## iserith

Fenris-77 said:


> You said the following:
> 
> I was expanding on this notion, and outlining a bunch of areas in which it could be _bad_, without being wrong. The tone of your posts seemed to suggest that whatever the DM decided would be right (i.e. not wrong) and isn't at all how I'd choose to descibe it. I think that value judgments, like good and bad, probably better describe the spectrum of possibilities than do right and wrong. Relative of course to the individual table and the goals of play for that table.
> 
> I think we agree, but a casual read of your first post might not suggest that. Hence my reply.




We do appear to agree overall. I stand by the notion that whatever the DM decides to do _with regard to calling for a roll or not_ is correct because that is firmly defined as the DM's role and it solely at his or her discretion. What follows in narration of the results of the adventurers' actions (roll or no roll), however, may not achieve the goals of play.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Retreater said:


> I don't mind if they're going off the rails of the adventure path per se, but it's that I'm trying to run it using the module on a VTT, and not on a home F2F game I can easily adapt. So if the group wants to go to a new area not detailed in the adventure, to deal with different NPCs, face alternative challenges, etc, I can't easily change it in this format. Now given enough advance notice, I can make new maps, add new NPC stat blocks, etc, but we're all stressing out in our daily lives, I'm running a weekly session for them (instead of the normal biweekly or monthly) and I think going along with a general storyline the party agreed to play at the outset for the sake of DM sanity isn't too much to ask.




So with the pandemic I've recently discovered the challenges of playing D&D without relying on the published materials. My 5E campaign is largely homebrew, and although I use existing concepts and elements, I'm not running straight through any of the published books. So I know how challenging it can be to not have the proper materials to play in the way to which you've grown accustomed. 

So my question for you is do you have Curse of Strahd on Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds? If so, don't you have all the sites in Barovia to run the game? Barovia is a finite area. 

I'm just curious in what way you were worried about them going off on their own.


----------



## hawkeyefan

billd91 said:


> The OP said the PC tried to grapple... and failed. That mechanical enough for you? I've been saying right along that the PCs could have tried something to escape their fate but that it should come from them not a deus ex machina. They didn't, expressly in at least one case. If the players aren't going to give the DM anything to go on, that seems pretty final to me.
> 
> What I do have a problem with is cooking up a mechanical resolution for determining the burgomaster's reaction to the PC-based effrontery when it's completely unnecessary and potentially counterproductive. He's already arresting malcontents and putting them in the stocks. Why would he do anything different? Why would it be better for that evidence to not be indicative of what the burgomaster would do if faced with the same opposition from the PCs?




Um...because the PCs are likely decked out in armor and capable of tossing fireballs around? 

The PCs aren't NPC villagers, used to living under the shadow of Strahd and the oppression of the Burgomaster. The Burgomaster agreed to grant them some kind of audience, per the OP, so it seems that he was played as recognizing their status or power. He already seems to be treating them differently than the villagers, no?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Fenris-77 said:


> @iserith - Wrong? Maybe not, but better or worse? Sure, some of those DM calls will be better or worse, for a host of potential different reason. A lot depends on meeting the table expectations, maybe more than any particular opinion on example X or Y. If the DM makes a call that is in keeping with how play normally proceeds at the table he plays with, and is one that makes sense in terms of the pre-existing fictional context (i.e follows from the fiction) then it's probably a fine call, whether I personally agree with it or not. However, when the DM or the players depart from the table conventions things quickly start to unwind.
> 
> In pretty much every case the first litmus test I would use would be the question _Does the ruling present interesting ways to move the fiction forward? _ If the answer is yes then the goals of play you list are probably being met. This does depend on the players buying in of course. One of things I don't really get about the situation in the OP is that several narrative lifelines were thrown to the PCs, with very little interest taken in them. That indexes a potential case of bad faith play, although without more specifics it is, as you say, hard to tell.




"Does the ruling present interesting ways to move the fiction forward?" is a great question to keep in mind anytime a GM has to narrate a consequence or judgment of this type. 

This is why in my posts, I've been looking at the actions of all those involved, rather than just the player who decided to have his character start the whole confrontation. I think that many in this thread are too focused on "what's realistic" (read: what's likely) as opposed to "what's interesting". Ideally, there'd be a venn diagram overlap where these two things are both true. If so, great. 

But if not....which do you choose? I think that's part of the actual question here....faith to the fiction versus faith to the fact that people are playing a game. I don't think there's one answer....or maybe the answer can vary depending on circumstances. 

But generally speaking, I have to go with what's real....the people playing the game. My decision has to take that into more consideration than the fiction. Especially since with fiction, you can come up with any number of outcomes that could be considered "realistic".


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> "Does the ruling present interesting ways to move the fiction forward?" is a great question to keep in mind anytime a GM has to narrate a consequence or judgment of this type.
> 
> This is why in my posts, I've been looking at the actions of all those involved, rather than just the player who decided to have his character start the whole confrontation. I think that many in this thread are too focused on "what's realistic" (read: what's likely) as opposed to "what's interesting". Ideally, there'd be a venn diagram overlap where these two things are both true. If so, great.
> 
> But if not....which do you choose? I think that's part of the actual question here....faith to the fiction versus faith to the fact that people are playing a game. I don't think there's one answer....or maybe the answer can vary depending on circumstances.
> 
> But generally speaking, I have to go with what's real....the people playing the game. My decision has to take that into more consideration than the fiction. Especially since with fiction, you can come up with any number of outcomes that could be considered "realistic".




That's a thoughtful post, and not at all an unreasonable end-position.  In the abstract, I'm even inclined to endorse it ... right up until doing so as a GM would break *my* suspension of disbelief--once that breaks, I can't GM in the campaign. Others may draw that line differently, or not need to draw it at all, but it's a line that exists for me, and it's clear to me inside my head when I'm near it. I think something like that may be at the heart of why people are reacting at such variance, here: some people have an easier time with willing suspension of disbelief than others, and it's more important to some people than others.


----------



## Umbran

hawkeyefan said:


> I think that many in this thread are too focused on "what's realistic" (read: what's likely) as opposed to "what's interesting".




Well, a great many people will say that, eventually, there's a point at which the PCs die, even if that is uninteresting.  It isn't like the OP had the PCs killed instantly.  How many boats do you send them before the flood overtakes them?



> But generally speaking, I have to go with what's real....the people playing the game. My decision has to take that into more consideration than the fiction. Especially since with fiction, you can come up with any number of outcomes that could be considered "realistic".




Is having PCs die inherently uninteresting?

There's been a lot of talk here about relying on mechanical resolution.  Sometimes mechanical systems make it so a character dies.  Proponents of strictly holding to system will argue that result is not inherently more or less interesting than any other result.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> That's a thoughtful post, and not at all an unreasonable end-position.  In the abstract, I'm even inclined to endorse it ... right up until doing so as a GM would break *my* suspension of disbelief--once that breaks, I can't GM in the campaign. Others may draw that line differently, or not need to draw it at all, but it's a line that exists for me, and it's clear to me inside my head when I'm near it. I think something like that may be at the heart of why people are reacting at such variance, here: some people have an easier time with willing suspension of disbelief than others, and it's more important to some people than others.




Sure, I think you're very much right that there will be different tipping points for different people. 

But I think part of it is weighing what options are possible, and then comparing them to kind of determine what's most probable. So we may have a range of possibilities.....some maybe more likely within the fiction than others. 

I think many are treating "most probable" as "certain", and viewing anything less possible as "unrealistic", and I don't think that's the best way to proceed. I think the threshold has to be flexible enough to allow reasonable results that will also be fun or engaging to play. Obviously, in the OP, things kind of fell apart to at least some extent.....and I think that's because there was a little too much focus on fidelity to the fiction rather than to the experience of playing.

Also, in talking about this in terms of probability and so on.....doesn't that seem to lend itself to a dice roll? Maybe on a 4-6, the mayor calls for their arrest, but on a 3 he only warns them they will be arrested if they continue, and so on. So many elements of the game (and many other games) that it seems odd to just toss that kind of thing out the window. Again, I don't think mechanical resolution is necessary in order to acheive a favorable play experience.....but I think that it certainly could help in some cases, and why some folks are advocating for it.


----------



## Umbran

hawkeyefan said:


> I think many are treating "most probable" as "certain", and viewing anything less possible as "unrealistic", and I don't think that's the best way to proceed. I think the threshold has to be flexible enough to allow reasonable results that will also be fun or engaging to play.




So, similar to the question I asked above, but approached differently.

If you were playing D&D, and the players took on a fight - the strength of which was well-telegraphed and in which they made some real tactical blunders and come close to losing some PCs... do you regularly consider _deus ex machina_ solutions so no PCs die?  Or do you let soe PCs die, and and let the remaining PCs work how they want to deal with that in-story?

If you don't generaly work to save PCs, why is a combat encounter any different from a high-stakes socio-political encounter?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Umbran said:


> Well, a great many people will say that, eventually, there's a point at which the PCs die, even if that is uninteresting.  It isn't like the OP had the PCs killed instantly.  How many boats do you send them before the flood overtakes them?




I don't know....it's a bit unclear exactly how it went down. I do think he gave them options, yes, and some were flat out declined....so I don't blame him in that regard. But we don't know exactly all the steps that were taken, and what rolls were successful and what ones failed to end with things as they were.

But, I'm taking the OP at his word that there was something unsatisfying about how this all played out.



Umbran said:


> Is having PCs die inherently uninteresting?
> 
> There's been a lot of talk here about relying on mechanical resolution.  Sometimes mechanical systems make it so a character dies.  Proponents of strictly holding to system will argue that result is not inherently more or less interesting than any other result.




My point with the comment you quoted was that if I have to choose between fidelity to the fiction, and service to the social act of playing a game....I have to go with the game since the players and their enjoyment are real. I am not going to choose something that seems a "realistic" outcome in the fiction, if it paints me into a corner that will create an unfun experience for the player(s).

And I don't think that the call for mechanics is about preventing unwanted consequences. It's more about creating a process for how things occur in the fiction where there is doubt about the outcome. I'm not someone who wants to eradicate GM judgment in the game....but I more prefer where a GM's judgment is about establishing a DC and then calling for a roll rather than just deciding the outcome by fiat. 

This way, if we find that the game has come to a state where we're all going "wow how did it come to this", the answer isn't going to be "it was all Bob's fault."


----------



## hawkeyefan

Umbran said:


> So, similar to the question I asked above, but approached differently.
> 
> If you were playing D&D, and the players took on a fight - the strength of which was well-telegraphed and in which they made some real tactical blunders and come close to losing some PCs... do you regularly consider _deus ex machina_ solutions so no PCs die?  Or do you let soe PCs die, and and let the remaining PCs work how they want to deal with that in-story?
> 
> If you don't generaly work to save PCs, why is a combat encounter any different from a high-stakes socio-political encounter?




I love consequences for PCs. You seem to think that I've somehow advocated for PCs never dying. Or never facing negative consequences. I haven't. 

What I'm addressing is the fact that the play described in the OP got to a point where it was not enjoyable to the group. I'm not saying it was bad or awful or anything like that....I wasn't there, and so my opinion is limited to what has been shared with me. I'm just going off the dissatisfaction of different kinds expressed in the OP and in his follow up comments. 

If players make decisions that get them into bad situations, and incur bad consequences....that's absolutely fine with me. I tend to not want to simply decide those things myself. I want them to be clear outcomes from player choices and game mechanics, with my judgment usually limited to application of the mechanics more than the outcome.

So your example of how combat comes to the end results it comes to by use of dice is kind of making my point. I think social encounters would be better served where equivalent mechanics are applied. Or at the very least, are available to consider. 

I think there are times where I would flat out decide something by fiat and stick to it.....but I'd like those times to be few and far between. And I'll add that this is all my preference, not a call for this to always be the case for everyone.


----------



## Retreater

hawkeyefan said:


> So with the pandemic I've recently discovered the challenges of playing D&D without relying on the published materials. My 5E campaign is largely homebrew, and although I use existing concepts and elements, I'm not running straight through any of the published books. So I know how challenging it can be to not have the proper materials to play in the way to which you've grown accustomed.
> 
> So my question for you is do you have Curse of Strahd on Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds? If so, don't you have all the sites in Barovia to run the game? Barovia is a finite area.
> 
> I'm just curious in what way you were worried about them going off on their own.



Yes. I have it on Roll20. And I have all the maps and characters associated with the adventure. But I don't have "extra stuff," so if they want to befriend other groups that aren't in the adventure I'll have to create them and their maps (which is a little more work because of online play and I can't do it at the drop of a hat). Online play on a VTT (especially with the group needing tokens and maps for every location) isn't conducive to improv.


----------



## iserith

Retreater said:


> Yes. I have it on Roll20. And I have all the maps and characters associated with the adventure. But I don't have "extra stuff," so if they want to befriend other groups that aren't in the adventure I'll have to create them and their maps (which is a little more work because of online play and I can't do it at the drop of a hat). Online play on a VTT (especially with the group needing tokens and maps for every location) isn't conducive to improv.




What I do is have generic maps for the terrains that may be encountered on a separate page as well as "splash pages" which contain evocative art appropriate to the adventure. If there's no combat, then I use the splash pages. Handouts are also good for this - throw an image in the handout then some flavor text in the text box.


----------



## aramis erak

jasper said:


> Liar lair lair pants on fire. I read it cover to cover during the second week of the lockdown. Yes I was bored.



I read it cover to cover the day after I bought it. Mostly to see what had changed, and what was and was not allowed in DDAL within it, because I was, at the time, paid to GM.


----------



## Campbell

When we choose how the the rest of the world responds to a character's actions as GMs we are making a judgement call and should own that judgement call. What principles inform that judgement is going to depend on the GM and the game. I have a certain amount of sympathy for that judgement to only be decided in relation to the fiction. I have less sympathy towards the idea that it should be guided by a GM's idea for what makes the best story or to pull things in a certain direction. That's like just my damage man.

Personally if the game is focused on the characters I tend to add should be interesting to the players (not the characters). That can mean possibly death if it fits, that they are in a spot, or that they need to seek other avenues. I do not know how I personally would have treated this. Fifth Edition does not have real strong guidance on what the GM's principles should be.

What I cannot get behind at all is that the players need to be punished so they start playing in a different more agreeable way. I am all for consequences for the character, but play should continue to be fun for all the players. If there is a difference in play styles that cannot be dealt with than conversations need to be had. That does not make the play wrong or bad, just ill suited to that particular game.


----------



## MGibster

Campbell said:


> What I cannot get behind at all is that the players need to be punished so they start playing in a different more agreeable way. I am all for consequences for the character, but play should continue to be fun for all the players. If there is a difference in play styles that cannot be dealt with than conversations need to be had. That does not make the play wrong or bad, just ill suited to that particular game.




I agree, players shouldn't be punished in the hopes that they'll modify their play style.  The best course of action is to hold a conversation and figure out where to proceed from there.


----------



## prabe

MGibster said:


> I agree, players shouldn't be punished in the hopes that they'll modify their play style.  The best course of action is to hold a conversation and figure out where to proceed from there.




I agree. I think there's some disagreement whether having the Mad Tyrant behave "realistically" (where that's defined as "executing the PCs") is punishing the players, aside from any other axis to measure it as good GMing. I think it can be, but I don't think it must be.


----------



## Umbran

hawkeyefan said:


> I love consequences for PCs. You seem to think that I've somehow advocated for PCs never dying. Or never facing negative consequences. I haven't.




Don't worry so much about what I seem to think, because you have missed the mark terribly there.  

I asked some questions, that lead each other into each other pretty logically - the point was simply to consider social situations vs. combat situations, and let people determine how they felt about whether they are all just challenges, or they are somehow fundamentally different.



> What I'm addressing is the fact that the play described in the OP got to a point where it was not enjoyable to the group.




Yep.  And much of the early part of the thread already recognized that, and counseled talking to them about it, and expectations, and such.  



> If players make decisions that get them into bad situations, and incur bad consequences....that's absolutely fine with me. I tend to not want to simply decide those things myself. I want them to be clear outcomes from player choices and game mechanics, with my judgment usually limited to application of the mechanics more than the outcome.




As already noted, the typical mechanical systems don't give you _explicit_ events that result.  They only tell you whether the players succeed or fail (perhaps with degrees).  The GM has to figure out what that means in the context of the narrative.  So, as a GM, you're deciding consequences anyway.

And, with respect to the desire for mechanics - while I understand the point in general, for this example it is not clearly relevant.  As has been noted already, mechanical systems typically have the clause, "don't bother using the mechanics if success or failure is clear to you, the GM". The GM already ruled that the failure was clear.  

IF the game had relevant mechanics, it would have been reasonable for the GM to not invoke them, and just jump to consequences.  That's why I think the "...but, mechanics!" is a bit of a misdirection.

That leaves us with the more general question of "When and how do we pull PC's bacon out of the fire?"


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> To go back to the trap example; let's say a PC searches the door (or whatever) and triggers a trap, and the DM decides, "there's no reasonable way you can avoid what happens.....your PC is dead."



And if the DM is running a module in which it clearly states that triggering the trap results in a no-save death (e.g. a 10'-cube chunk of roof falls on the PC who is in a 10x10' room), then what?



> I think many would argue that, under some "DM has final word" type of caveat, that this is well within what can happen at the table. But I know many folks, even those who might say that yes the DM can decide such, would be very annoyed if this is how it was handled at the table.



True.  I'm merely trying to find a basis for comparison here, to put the trap and the kill-the-king on the same footing.

If I put it as each event results in save-or-die rather than just die, are we closer?



> I don't think that social interactions need mechanics for every little thing or anything like that.....but if PC execution is being put forth as a possible result, then I think having rules that allow for a clear process of how we end with that result is preferable to relying almost purely on DM whim.



I disagree (with a caveat, see below); in that the DM has to be allowed to play her NPCs in a manner consistent with who and what they are - just like players have to be similarly allowed to play their PCs.

Here, the guy already has a reputation of being "the mad tyrant" and - one hopes - has already shown signs of living up to that reputation while the PCs have been in town.  They know what they're up against; and if they choose to attack him anyway and fail, their fate is no longer their own.

The caveat: if the PCs had never heard of this guy before first meeting him and thus didn't know his reputation etc. one of two things would happen: if the PCs talked with him at all I'd make sure it was obvious he was both competely unstable and prone to fits of violence; if they attacked him on first sight only then would I resort to dice.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> "Does the ruling present interesting ways to move the fiction forward?" is a great question to keep in mind anytime a GM has to narrate a consequence or judgment of this type.
> 
> This is why in my posts, I've been looking at the actions of all those involved, rather than just the player who decided to have his character start the whole confrontation. I think that many in this thread are too focused on "what's realistic" (read: what's likely) as opposed to "what's interesting". Ideally, there'd be a venn diagram overlap where these two things are both true. If so, great.
> 
> But if not....which do you choose? I think that's part of the actual question here....faith to the fiction versus faith to the fact that people are playing a game. I don't think there's one answer....or maybe the answer can vary depending on circumstances.



Good question, and probably to no surprise I'd lean - often fairly strongly - toward "faith to the fiction".

In a long sprawling campaign like what I run, internal consistency becomes far more important than in a one-shot or even a hard-line AP; which means sacrificing that long-term internal consistency for the sake of a here-and-now moment in the story isn't something I'm going to want to do very often.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> My point with the comment you quoted was that if I have to choose between fidelity to the fiction, and service to the social act of playing a game....I have to go with the game since the players and their enjoyment are real. I am not going to choose something that seems a "realistic" outcome in the fiction, if it paints me into a corner that will create an unfun experience for the player(s).
> 
> And I don't think that the call for mechanics is about preventing unwanted consequences. It's more about creating a process for how things occur in the fiction where there is doubt about the outcome. I'm not someone who wants to eradicate GM judgment in the game....but I more prefer where a GM's judgment is about establishing a DC and then calling for a roll rather than just deciding the outcome by fiat.
> 
> This way, if we find that the game has come to a state where we're all going "wow how did it come to this", the answer isn't going to be "it was all Bob's fault."



This all just sounds like the role of the mechanics is simply to cover the DM's butt if things go wrong.....


----------



## Lanefan

Umbran said:


> That leaves us with the more general question of "When and how do we pull PC's bacon out of the fire?"



Or, perhaps, how much leeway do we give them to pull their own bacon out of the fire? (if they're not keen on saving themselves, I'm far less encouraged to help them out)


----------



## hawkeyefan

Umbran said:


> Don't worry so much about what I seem to think, because you have missed the mark terribly there.




If so, then my apologies. However, you seem to be missing a lot of the context for my comments, and leaving relevant parts un-quoted in your replies.



Umbran said:


> I asked some questions, that lead each other into each other pretty logically - the point was simply to consider social situations vs. combat situations, and let people determine how they felt about whether they are all just challenges, or they are somehow fundamentally different.
> 
> Yep.  And much of the early part of the thread already recognized that, and counseled talking to them about it, and expectations, and such.
> 
> As already noted, the typical mechanical systems don't give you _explicit_ events that result.  They only tell you whether the players succeed or fail (perhaps with degrees).  The GM has to figure out what that means in the context of the narrative.  So, as a GM, you're deciding consequences anyway.
> 
> And, with respect to the desire for mechanics - while I understand the point in general, for this example it is not clearly relevant.  As has been noted already, mechanical systems typically have the clause, "don't bother using the mechanics if success or failure is clear to you, the GM". The GM already ruled that the failure was clear.
> 
> IF the game had relevant mechanics, it would have been reasonable for the GM to not invoke them, and just jump to consequences.  That's why I think the "...but, mechanics!" is a bit of a misdirection.
> 
> That leaves us with the more general question of "When and how do we pull PC's bacon out of the fire?"




I don't think that's the question I am discussing at all. I think that question will largely vary from group to group, and all players and GMs should try and get a good feel for what will work for them and then proceed accordingly. 

My point is more about how to try and prevent play from getting to a point where it has become not fun for any or all participants. My advocacy for considering mechanical resolution is related to how I believe it can help prevent this. And yes, I think some kind of system that allows for degrees of success and failure is preferable. Even just having that as a framework to lean on can very much help a GM with determining specifics for consequences.

Of course it's not perfect. And of course things could work out just fine if the DM is simply deciding everything by whim all along. But in this instance, there was some feeling of dissatisfaction with the result. As I replied to your other post to me, it's hard to say exactly what happened here. We know the gist, but we don't know what rolls were made, and if they succeeded, or what the results were. How many persuasion checks were needed and how many were failed, and so on.

Of course there is a point where you have to say that everything has been tried, and therefore the PCs fail or die or whatever negative consequence may have been at risk. I don't think that's in doubt. In this instance, despite all the suggestion from posters to execute the PCs, the OP didn't go that route. So it seems he felt that there was something to salvage here?


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Simply being human does not mean that there is always some small chance success.  If the DM thinks that it makes more sense that there is no chance, then there is no chance.  Other rules in the game are not relevant to that decision as such a decision is based on the DM's knowledge of the NPC.



I think the following, on p 2 of the Basic PDF, is relevant.:

*Together*, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if *everyone* had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.​
I've bolded a couple of words that I think are especially salient. It is _everyone together _who create a memorable and exciting story. It seems to me that that is highly relevant to a GM wondering what decision to make about what is and is not possible in relation to action resolution.

I further think that a GM who never permits a CHA check at any moment of crisis or confrontation, because s/he has always already pre-decided how an NPC might react, is not playing the game in the spirit that the Basic PDF presents.

To be honest I'm suprised that it's controversial to say these things. In AD&D it is well-known that there are better and worse ways to use the discretions that system confers on a GM. Eg there are better and worse approaches to dungeon design, better and worse ways to adjudicate action declarations, better and worse ways to award XP, etc. This is why we have notions like "killer dungeon" and "Monty Haul GM". It's true that both boundaries and particular examples might be controversial from time-to-time, but the general idea of standards of skill and quality is not disputed as far as I know.

I can't comment on 3E as I don't know it well enough, but 4e clearly establishes standards for better or worse GMing. The idea that it is not possible to apply any sort of standards or critical analysis to 5e GMing strikes me as very odd.



iserith said:


> It may not be what you want to hear, but the DM *can *make the decision as to the uncertainty of the outcome or the existence of a meaningful consequence for failure by whatever means he or she wants. There is no roll except by the DM's leave. Different DMs will make different calls here and none would be wrong. Some calls may result in the group failing to achieve the goals of play - that is, everyone having a good time and creating an exciting, memorable story by playing - but we don't know that this is the case here.



I'm not sure what you think the force of the bolded _can _is here. Maybe there's some GM somewhere who makes those decisions based on a coin-toss. I don't think anyone would advocate that as good GMing, thoiugh. In this thread I'm not asserting that any rule was broken. I'm asserting that the system has ways to resolve the sort of action described in the OP, and that gameplay is likely to be better - more fun, more dynamic, with more player satisfaction - if those resolution mechanics are used.

As far as this particular case, given that - per the OP - the upshot was one player apologising to the GM for "ruining the campaign." I'm going to conjecture that everyone did _not _have a good time creating an exciting and memorable story.



Fenris-77 said:


> Wrong? Maybe not, but better or worse? Sure, some of those DM calls will be better or worse, for a host of potential different reason. A lot depends on meeting the table expectations, maybe more than any particular opinion on example X or Y. If the DM makes a call that is in keeping with how play normally proceeds at the table he plays with, and is one that makes sense in terms of the pre-existing fictional context (i.e follows from the fiction) then it's probably a fine call, whether I personally agree with it or not. However, when the DM or the players depart from the table conventions things quickly start to unwind.
> 
> In pretty much every case the first litmus test I would use would be the question _Does the ruling present interesting ways to move the fiction forward? _ If the answer is yes then the goals of play you list are probably being met. This does depend on the players buying in of course. One of things I don't really get about the situation in the OP is that several narrative lifelines were thrown to the PCs, with very little interest taken in them. That indexes a potential case of bad faith play, although without more specifics it is, as you say, hard to tell.



I am posting about what makes for better or worse GMing.

In this context I don't see any evidence for "bad faith" play - as I already posted upthread, if RPGing was full of people who turn up so they can flip over the table, that would be a sign of something pretty sad about the hobby. To me it seems like a player was frustrated and/or bored with the unfolding situation - perhaps in part because the fiction was not moving forward in a way that was interesting to him (? I think I saw that pronoun used). The player took a step to try and move things forward - "you're crazy and don't deserve leadership here" - which by all accounts of this module seems to be true, and uncontroversially true. The GM then escalated it to violence by having the NPC call for the guards, who turned up and sought to arrest the PCs.

I think this is the decision point that invites inquiry as to whether the GM made the best decision that was available. Reiterating that the GM didn't break any rule - as @iserith and @Maxperson are doing - doesn't seem to me to take that inquiry very far forward. Given that a player ended up apologising for "ruining the campaign", I think it's fair to infer that the ensuing episode of play was not experienced as satisfactory. I don't think that dissatisfaction is going to be resolved by just reiterating that the rules give a lot of discretion to the GM.



iserith said:


> It appears you are more or less restating what I said after the word "wrong" in my last post.



And what you said didn't seem to add anything to what I had already posted in the thread. You quoted me saying "the GM is not - as best I can tell - expected to make that decision arbitrarily, or without having regard to the rest of the rules which (among other things) tell us what ability scores represent and what ability checks are for. . . . I don't see that it is good GMing to decide that a task is impossible when there is no reason in genre or logic for it to be so, and when - as appeared to happen in this case - it will create a less-than-satsifactory experience to so decide." Which bit of that do you disagree with? Clearly not the stuff on the right of the ellipsis, given that you have simply gone on to repeat it. The stuff on the left side? You think the GM is _not_ meant to have regard to the rest of the rules, including what ability scores represent, in making decisions about whether or not a check should be called for?



Maxperson said:


> For example, I don't care how good a talker your PC is, you are not going to have a roll to persuade the merchant you just met to give you the contents of his store and warehouse for free.  There is no other rule that has any bearing on that.  It simply makes more sense that you have no chance to achieve such a nonsensical result, so you get no roll.



This is the sort of example I regard as compleltey unhelpful to discussion. Because it is not an example from actual play. It is not an example of an actual moment of conflict in an ongoing game where the players sincerely declare actions for their PCs.

The last time something like what you describe _actually came up in play for me_, the situation was that the PCs (in a Traveller game) had taken a NPC and her ship and crew captive. The situation was tense and the PCs' control of it not total. The agreement reached was to gamble for ownership of the NPC's ship - the noble PC (a skilled gambler) against the ship owner (also a gambler). The player wond the dice-off, which is to say that the PC won the game, and title to the ship was handed over. The NPC now serves as a senior member of the crew on her former ship, with some other NPCs who were crew members under her command as well as other PCs.

Action resolution is how a game goes forward.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> That's a thoughtful post, and not at all an unreasonable end-position.  In the abstract, I'm even inclined to endorse it ... right up until doing so as a GM would break *my* suspension of disbelief--once that breaks, I can't GM in the campaign. Others may draw that line differently, or not need to draw it at all, but it's a line that exists for me, and it's clear to me inside my head when I'm near it. I think something like that may be at the heart of why people are reacting at such variance, here: some people have an easier time with willing suspension of disbelief than others, and it's more important to some people than others.



My take on this is that players have to change their conceptions of their PCs all the time - eg I might conceive of my bold warrior as indomitable, but if I fail my save against a dragon's frightful presence, it turns out I'm not as inomitable as I thought!

Given how much more peripheral to the GM any given NPC is, compared to the PC as the core of the players' engagement with the fiction and experience of the game, I would expect a GM to be able to handle similar sorts of things.


----------



## pemerton

Umbran said:


> I asked some questions



But were they Socratic ones?


----------



## iserith

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure what you think the force of the bolded _can _is here. Maybe there's some GM somewhere who makes those decisions based on a coin-toss. I don't think anyone would advocate that as good GMing, thoiugh. In this thread I'm not asserting that any rule was broken. I'm asserting that the system has ways to resolve the sort of action described in the OP, and that gameplay is likely to be better - more fun, more dynamic, with more player satisfaction - if those resolution mechanics are used.




I assert that may be so or it may not be. It depends.



pemerton said:


> As far as this particular case, given that - per the OP - the upshot was one player apologising to the GM for "ruining the campaign." I'm going to conjecture that everyone did _not _have a good time creating an exciting and memorable story.




Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps on the whole they did. Or maybe this one outcome ruined it. It's for the OP to say. You seem to be asserting that it is likely to have been better if they had just employed some Charisma checks. That is far from certain in my view even if I would have personally used the DMG's social interaction rules for this challenge. (And even if I did, there's no guarantee there'd be any ability checks either.)



pemerton said:


> And what you said didn't seem to add anything to what I had already posted in the thread. You quoted me saying "the GM is not - as best I can tell - expected to make that decision arbitrarily, or without having regard to the rest of the rules which (among other things) tell us what ability scores represent and what ability checks are for. . . . I don't see that it is good GMing to decide that a task is impossible when there is no reason in genre or logic for it to be so, and when - as appeared to happen in this case - it will create a less-than-satsifactory experience to so decide." Which bit of that do you disagree with? Clearly not the stuff on the right of the ellipsis, given that you have simply gone on to repeat it. The stuff on the left side? You think the GM is _not_ meant to have regard to the rest of the rules, including what ability scores represent, in making decisions about whether or not a check should be called for?




What I did was point out some rules you left out, likely because you don't play D&D 5e to my knowledge and as a result don't read the D&D 5e DMG. Those rules state that the DM decides if something has an uncertain outcome, full stop. Tasks don't have an uncertain outcomes or meaningful consequences for failure by default. And if you're going to say there should have been some Charisma checks here and quote rules to make your case, you can't leave out the rules that say it's up to the DM to decide that if the task qualifies for a check. Not without making an argument that is full of holes.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I think the following, on p 2 of the Basic PDF, is relevant.:
> 
> *Together*, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if *everyone* had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.​



​​​


> I've bolded a couple of words that I think are especially salient. It is _everyone together _who create a memorable and exciting story. It seems to me that that is highly relevant to a GM wondering what decision to make about what is and is not possible in relation to action resolution.




So creating the story together simply refers to the back and forth between the players and the DM.  The player states his action, and the DM narrates the result.  Whether that result involved a roll or was decided upon by the DM does not alter that together they created the story.  Now, ideally everyone is having fun, but I know of no one that I play with who would enjoy allowing utterly ridiculous results like the one I described in my last response to you.  Similarly, I've never met anyone who would be upset when I didn't allow the PC a roll to jump a 3 mile wide canyon.



> I further think that a GM who never permits a CHA check at any moment of crisis or confrontation, because s/he has always already pre-decided how an NPC might react, is not playing the game in the spirit that the Basic PDF presents.




Holy Strawman Batman!  How the hell did you get from, "I know when something like an absolutely ridiculous result would be an auto fail." to "never permitting a check."?  I know that the merchant won't under any possible circumstances be persuaded by a CHA check to give away his entire store and warehouse inventory to a PC he has never met.  I do not know whether or not he will give the PC a 2 copper candy for free.  One gets a roll and the other doesn't.


----------



## Fenris-77

@pemerton - I might disagree about evidence for bad faith play. From the description, at least part of the player decision making stemmed form boredom. That doesn't always result in bad faith play, but it certainly can. So we're at least in the right ballpark. Also, the lack of interest in and interaction with the variety of lifelines subsequently thrown by the DM also _could_ index bad faith play. I'm not suggesting that bad faith is the case, only that there is enough circumstantial evidence for the possibility that the idea is worth bringing into the discussion.

I don't think 'not breaking any rules' moves the inquiry forward either, which is why I though we might switch the conversation from right and wrong to good and bad, although I might now push that even further to useful and not useful. What we're really talking about the is use of the latitude provided the DM by the rules. Also at issue, and why I came back to my point above, is that adjudication is fine, but the conversation that moves the fiction forward has two sides, and the DM can only control his half. So we are also talking about good and bad, and useful and not useful, in terms of player engagement with the outcome of adjudication. The extent to which 'good GMing", whatever that exactly is, might have avoided this mess is also dependent on player response, which seems to have been an issue.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> I think the following, on p 2 of the Basic PDF, is relevant.:
> 
> *Together*, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if *everyone* had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.​
> I've bolded a couple of words that I think are especially salient. It is _everyone together _who create a memorable and exciting story. It seems to me that that is highly relevant to a GM wondering what decision to make about what is and is not possible in relation to action resolution.



Nice in theory.

In practice, unless a DM happens to have a group of players who all think the same (or only has one player) and-or who consistently enjoy an extremely similar style of play, it's inevitable that from time to time situations are going to arise where no matter what happens next someone's not going to have fun. The original example around the mad tyrant may be one of these: talking to him isn't fun for some, attacking him isn't fun for others, and walking out of the encounter completely isn't fun for the DM.

Players (and DMs) don't necessarily always want the same things from the game, either in general (overall style) or on specific nights (temporary mood).

And while on hearing this some here will immediately jump to saying those who want something different should find - or start - their own game, that's not always possible, feasible, or desirable.  My take on it is if you're having fun keep at it; and if you're not having fun either a) assume that lack of fun will be a temporary state* and suck it up or b) find a way to make it fun.  Personally, I strongly recommend b).

* - particularly true if the campaign up to now _has_ been fun and you've simply sailed into a hole.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> @pemerton - I might disagree about evidence for bad faith play. From the description, at least part of the player decision making stemmed form boredom. That doesn't always result in bad faith play, but it certainly can. So we're at least in the right ballpark. Also, the lack of interest in and interaction with the variety of lifelines subsequently thrown by the DM also _could_ index bad faith play. I'm not suggesting that bad faith is the case, only that there is enough circumstantial evidence for the possibility that the idea is worth bringing into the discussion.




The OP has, I think, described the player as "probably bored" and "a long-time friend." I get the feeling the play was more impulsive/thoughtless, followed by a species of stubborn, than it was malicious. Whether that qualifies it as bad-faith play may depend on who's deciding.



Fenris-77 said:


> I don't think 'not breaking any rules' moves the inquiry forward either, which is why I though we might switch the conversation from right and wrong to good and bad, although I might now push that even further to useful and not useful. What we're really talking about the is use of the latitude provided the DM by the rules. Also at issue, and why I came back to my point above, is that adjudication is fine, but the conversation that moves the fiction forward has two sides, and the DM can only control his half. So we are also talking about good and bad, and useful and not useful, in terms of player engagement with the outcome of adjudication. The extent to which 'good GMing", whatever that exactly is, might have avoided this mess is also dependent on player response, which seems to have been an issue.




Yeah. If you've telegraphed something about an NPC, you have less latitude as a GM, I think, when the players push that NPC's buttons. I also think there's a limit to how hard a GM should work to protect the characters from the consequences of the players' choices--and attacking someone with the authority and disposition to have you executed is a choice.


----------



## Fenris-77

I would probably characterize thoughtless play at a key moment as bad faith play, yeah. It doesn't need to be malicious, any actions taken without thought for the table, and/or for reasons other than the fiction and the rest of the players is headed in that direction. Maybe something different that 'bad faith' would characterize that better, I just couldn't think of a different term that worked for me.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> My take on this is that players have to change their conceptions of their PCs all the time - eg I might conceive of my bold warrior as indomitable, but if I fail my save against a dragon's frightful presence, it turns out I'm not as inomitable as I thought!
> 
> Given how much more peripheral to the GM any given NPC is, compared to the PC as the core of the players' engagement with the fiction and experience of the game, I would expect a GM to be able to handle similar sorts of things.




Sure, characters grow. Players come to an understanding of their characters that changes as a result of in-game experiences. IMO this is usually a good thing (one of the characters I'm playing continues to surprise me).

That's not the same thing (or it doesn't seem to me to be the same thing) as having the world react to the PCs in a way that breaks my suspension of disbelief. If it's not believable to me that the Mad Tyrant would do anything other than make a serious effort to execute the PCs who insulted and attacked him, he's going to make that effort to do that. If he has the resources to do it (this place isn't all that well-off, as I understand it, so he might not) the PCs are going to find it very difficult to escape without outside help, which might also not be believable if it has to come from outside the party.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> I would probably characterize thoughtless play at a key moment as bad faith play, yeah. It doesn't need to be malicious, any actions taken without thought for the table, and/or for reasons other than the fiction and the rest of the players is headed in that direction. Maybe something different that 'bad faith' would characterize that better, I just couldn't think of a different term that worked for me.




I get it. I don't have a better descriptor close-to-hand than "bad-faith," either. I guess there's an extent thing: there' a difference between play that might end a campaign and play that might end a friendship, but they both might reasonably be described as "bad faith."


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> And if the DM is running a module in which it clearly states that triggering the trap results in a no-save death (e.g. a 10'-cube chunk of roof falls on the PC who is in a 10x10' room), then what?




Well, they generally don't make traps that work that way anymore that I'm aware of, and in my opinion that's a good thing. If I was running such a module, perhaps an older one converted to 5E, then I'd alter that to give some kind of save or check, or otherwise make it very clear that there is a very certain outcome at risk. 

And I think that stance probably also explains why I don't like the idea of PCs being executed without significant chance for the players to affect the outcome through actions and rolls.




Lanefan said:


> True.  I'm merely trying to find a basis for comparison here, to put the trap and the kill-the-king on the same footing.
> 
> If I put it as each event results in save-or-die rather than just die, are we closer?




I'm not a fan of save or die, generally speaking. Especially when there's a range of possibilities available. 

So I think my stance on consequences was called into question....and I think that maybe it's a matter of punishment versus consequence? Or maybe consequence for character versus player, as you and I touched on earlier. I'm not as concerned with consequence for the player.

I am all for meaningful consequence for the characters. But there are any number of consequences....degrees of potential consequences....that we could assign to the situation. I think going to imprisonment followed by execution is a bit of a case of jumping the gun, and I'd only do so if I thought it would be compelling to do so, and if I knew there were ways to continue playing. 



Lanefan said:


> I disagree (with a caveat, see below); in that the DM has to be allowed to play her NPCs in a manner consistent with who and what they are - just like players have to be similarly allowed to play their PCs.
> 
> Here, the guy already has a reputation of being "the mad tyrant" and - one hopes - has already shown signs of living up to that reputation while the PCs have been in town.  They know what they're up against; and if they choose to attack him anyway and fail, their fate is no longer their own.
> 
> The caveat: if the PCs had never heard of this guy before first meeting him and thus didn't know his reputation etc. one of two things would happen: if the PCs talked with him at all I'd make sure it was obvious he was both competely unstable and prone to fits of violence; if they attacked him on first sight only then would I resort to dice.




Well, sure, a GM should play the NPCs as he thinks is appropriate, similar to PCs. But the outcomes of their actions are what we're talking about. If there's risk of failure, then rolls are needed. 

I think establishing stakes is a big part of players making meaningful choices, so I agree with you there. They need to know the situation, and if they don't already, then the GM should try to display that for them in some way, barring some kind of attack on sight situation.



Lanefan said:


> Good question, and probably to no surprise I'd lean - often fairly strongly - toward "faith to the fiction".
> 
> In a long sprawling campaign like what I run, internal consistency becomes far more important than in a one-shot or even a hard-line AP; which means sacrificing that long-term internal consistency for the sake of a here-and-now moment in the story isn't something I'm going to want to do very often.




It's not about short or long term. It's about favoring the internal consistency of the fiction over people enjoying themselves. That's not something I want to do. Ideally, there's no need to choose, but if it comes up, then I have to prioritize the play experience.



Lanefan said:


> This all just sounds like the role of the mechanics is simply to cover the DM's butt if things go wrong.....




I suppose that could be the case. I mean, if things go wrong in my game, I'm sure that I'm at least partially to blame, and I don't think that I would try and avoid blame in such a case. But I think a lot of times, it's easier for a player to accept something happening as a result of the dice than as a result of DM choice. 

I suppose it depends on what you think the mechanics are for, I guess.


----------



## Hoffmand

I would have just had combat on the spot and let the combat play out. If they were subdued and placed in prison for some form of trial I would ask myself based on the description of the mad king, what would Stalin, Mao, ghengis khan, or hitler do. And treat the players accordingly. But in any campaign have ever run (few exceptions) the guards would have killed them on the spot. And the Kings  guards and attending nobleman are normally badass in combat.  That’s how they become Kings and knights.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> I get it. I don't have a better descriptor close-to-hand than "bad-faith," either. I guess there's an extent thing: there' a difference between play that might end a campaign and play that might end a friendship, but they both might reasonably be described as "bad faith."




I agree that it's a tricky term in this case. Bad faith in this sense seems to mean "disruptive". And although I do think that this player's choice disrupted where the game was going, I don't know if that's bad. It certainly could be. Is boredom a reason to do that kind of thing? Is it justified? I don't know, that's hard to answer.

What's the point at which we accept that boredom should no longer be tolerated by a player? I don't want to imply that the game was boring....certainly a couple of players were engaged....but this one player was not. And perhaps for multiple sessions. How long should he have to tolerate his boredom? 

Now, as always, conversation is likely the best way to resolve this. But for that you need either a player who is willing to speak up without coming across as offensive, or a GM who will notice and actually do something about it. And as OP said, it's much harder to do that online than in person, so I think that was a big part of it. 

I've seen bored players ruin things. I've also seen bored players shake things up and get them going again. I've also been in games that bored me, and I've tolerated it often, but on a few occasions, I've done something about it. 

"Bad faith" just implies a level of willingness to damage a game, I think. But as you say, it likely depends on who is defining it.


----------



## FrogReaver

I think the problem was that the mad tyrant was being played as if:
1.  The pcs were peasants
2.  He gave the PC’s an audience with no goal in mind for his part.

thus, you end up with tyrant who calls for guards at the slightest insult with no other meaningful personality traits for the DM to highlight.  It’s impossible for the pcs to interact with such a character meaningfully. About the only meaningful reaction they can get is guards or off with their heads because they will nearly undoubtedly offend me the NPC - Especially if they play their pc as heroic in the slightest.


----------



## Sadras

hawkeyefan said:


> What's the point at which we accept that boredom should no longer be tolerated by a player? I don't want to imply that the game was boring....certainly a couple of players were engaged....but this one player was not. And perhaps for multiple sessions. How long should he have to tolerate his boredom?




He should tolerate it long enough so as not to be disruptive during a game, and certainly not while everyone else is having fun.

If I am bored for multiple sessions that is on me as a player if I have not spoken up or have not left the group, but it certainly does not give me the right to disrupt the fun of others.


----------



## FrogReaver

I think a better interaction would be:

PC:  I insult Mad Tyrant
Mad Tyrant:  "you say you want an audience and so you obviously want something and yet you come to me speaking insults.  And they call me MAD? HA.  Tell me what you came for.  Speak quickly now before I tire of this and do X.  (Where X = {torture you, execute you, exile you, etc})

This leaves the players clear indications of the Tyrants mood toward them, what he wants and his plans if they don't give him what he wants.  It also opens the door for another character to step in and play the role of diplomat and apologize for his friends behavior.  All possible things that could change the trajectory of the interaction.


----------



## FrogReaver

I can't speak for the OP but I imagine that when the DM had the Tyrant call for guards it wasn't to arrest and execute the PC.  Instead I imagine it would have been to escort them away.  But the problem is that the players don't know what 'guards!" means.  To them it could just as easily be execution, imprisonment, all their gear taken, etc.  It's easy for me to see why such uncertain stakes could provoke a player to believe that the chance of death via their actions was justified because they also had a chance of death if they failed to act.  In that situation I think many players are going to go with known mechanics in order to try and avoid possible death and IMO this method sure beats the heck out of waiting for the DM to passively tell you what happens to your PC's.  You are taking your survival into your own hands!

In this case i believe the player who tried to take the Mad Tyrant hostage was acting in good faith and that he was doing it to try and save his friends lives by relying on known grappling mechanics to put team PC in a position to bypass the guards.  Of course failure at that point would mean something very bad, but then again - waiting on the guards could very well result in the same fate. 

The player that actually insulted the Mad Tyrant, that's a bit harder to say, but the good faith versions are that he was either trying to play his PC as heroic or true to his personality.  That's actually a PC I would love to have in my game - because he will play his character how he envision even knowing that doing so may cause some in game repercussions. 

I think that ultimately the best takeaway from this situation is to remember it's a game where players have very limited information.  Having the Mad Tyrant state his intent when calling the guards would also have given the players the information they needed to react appropriately.  I think if you as a DM like to see your players give you their action and intent for it that it's probably wise for you to do the same with your NPC's for them.


----------



## Campbell

I wanted to address something that has come up a couple times in this thread. There seems to be this idea that the campaign or story could be ruined by actions one of the player characters take. I really do not think our games or our characters are these fragile things that need protection. I contend the opposite can often be true. Exposing the things we love to real adversity or genuine transformative change is when we find out who they really are and what the world is really like. Play is really only interesting in motion.

At the end of the day none of us can really say what is or is not the right call for any moment of play. It is a judgement call and it will never be perfect. We should not expect it to be. Part of what makes this medium so compelling is how raw, authentic, and messy it is. I think we all owe it to ourselves to embrace the mess. 

This passage from one of my favorite blogs gets to the heart of how stories are seldom really ruined.



			
				 Passionate Play #5: You Can't Ruin The Story said:
			
		

> I’m going to make a bold claim (what else do I do on this site): Stories can not be ruined. Okay now let me qualify that: Stories can not be ruined through legitimate situational transformations alone. That might sound odd since my last Passionate Play post was all about how a Sorcerer game failed. However, I would like to point out that there was nothing wrong with the state of the fiction. The story was fine. Right now I could totally pick up the fiction where it left off and keep writing. What happened was that the players’ creative connection to the fiction was severed.
> 
> Recently Alex Duarte asked me to play his game unWritten. The setup is a pseudo-Europe with swashbuckling overtones. The Princess of Pseudo-France has just become of marrying age and the Kings of Pseudo-England and Pseudo-Spain are vying to marry her for political gain. My character is the Princess’s brother and Laura is playing her bodyguard.
> 
> The game is structured such that every player gets a turn to put their character in the spotlight where everyone introduces adversity for that character. It was Laura’s scene and I introduced an assassin who makes an attempt to kill the Princess. Laura’s character goes to stop him.
> 
> Now as this is going on Alex made a comment about downgrading my attempt to kill the Princess to simply attempting to wound her. Laura made a concurring comment about how if the Princess dies it deflates our entire setup. And they kind of proceeded assuming the situation was downgraded to wounding without really talking to me but that’s okay because Laura scored a partial success and although I had narration with that outcome my response was the same regardless of whether we were talking about wounding or killing.
> 
> However, I want to look a little closer at that sentiment that somehow the game/story would die along with the Princess. Is that really true? Yes, it certainly would have completely transformed the nature of the story at hand. I’m not convinced it would have ruined it. Let’s take a look at the characters.
> 
> My character has listed “his sister’s emotional welfare” as the thing he most values. Her death would certainly be shocking to him. Currently my story is about growing up and coming to terms with adult responsibility. My character projects a lot of that onto his sister and his somewhat controlling desire to preserve her innocence. Her death would likely have transformed those controlling elements from being less about change and responsibility and more about revenge or learning not to blame yourself for things you aren’t really responsible for.
> 
> Alex’s character is the son of the man ruling the country while the princess was still underage. I think he’s in love with her. Since line of succession would fall to my character that would have likely put us at political odds. His story would have likely changed from one about practicalities of politics interfering with love to one of childhood friendship put at odds through those same political practicalities.
> 
> Laura’s character probably would have faced the most radical redefinition. Her initial setup seemed to be about duty and honor and loyalty. The Princess dying would have transformed that into a story about dealing with failure or possibly having to find new purpose in life when the one thing you’ve dedicated yourself to gets taken away.
> 
> Now I’m not saying that any of these rather severe and radical transformations wouldn’t have severed our creative connection to the fiction. Indeed the commentary at the table suggested that it likely would have but I’d like to point out that The Princess’s death would not have “ruined” the story. The story would only have been radically redefined from our current expectations of it.
> 
> What I take away from this relative to my Play Passionately interests is learning to cultivate the skill in distinguishing between a genuinely bad artistic decision and these moments of radical transformation. I suggest that Playing Passionately as I envision it means being willing to risk having these kinds of transformations occur One moment you thought the story or your character was all about thing X but due to a turn of the situation or dice it’s no longer possible to pursue that thing. The story at hand has changed on a very fundamental level and you need to be willing to change with it.
> 
> If you feel the change at hand is severing your connection with the fiction perhaps taking a break is in order. Call the game, go home, sleep on it, and reevaluate the fiction. Reevaluate yourself and your relationship with the fiction, find what does engage you about this new situation (and its ramifications on your character) and begin authoring from there.


----------



## Manbearcat

Umbran said:


> And, with respect to the desire for mechanics - while I understand the point in general, for this example it is not clearly relevant.  As has been noted already, mechanical systems typically have the clause, "don't bother using the mechanics if success or failure is clear to you, the GM". The GM already ruled that the failure was clear.
> 
> IF the game had relevant mechanics, it would have been reasonable for the GM to not invoke them, and just jump to consequences.  That's why I think the "...but, mechanics!" is a bit of a misdirection.
> 
> That leaves us with the more general question of "When and how do we pull PC's bacon out of the fire?"




You said in this post (the snipped part) that you think hawkeyefan missed the mark.  

I don't agree.  But I do think that you're missing the mark (with respect to what hawkeyefan has said) with the above.

Go back to his comment about "the Venn Diagram of consequences pertaining to what is realistic and what is interesting (meaning thematically compelling and/or provacative while simultaneously leaving what comes next up for grabs)."

What hawkeyefan is saying (and what I agree with and have advocated the same) is the following:

1)  "Shades of mad tyrant" does not equal one singular response to any given stimuli or likely even be limited to a handful.

2)   His personal guard, his court, his besieged people, and his militia/watch would not respond to a situation with one singular response or likely even be limited to a handful.

3)   Humans (GMs) trying to model these interactions have blind spots.  Worse still, they have to actually (a) convey all of the relevant situation and setting information that goes into both (1) and (2) above and have related the context of the overarching conditions to the PCs such that they make informed decision-points while (b) filtering that through their own blind spots, fatigue, and the fog and difficulty of recall inherent to multiple sessions.

4)  As such, "going to the (player-facing) mechanics" and/or having strong, player-facing principles (perhaps those that aim toward interesting outcomes that follow from the fiction) to guide your adjudication of consequence gives you a pretty damn good chance of hitting that "realistic/interesting" overlap spot of the Venn Diagram.  And (i) it reduces your cognitive workload in the effort so you stay relatively fresh after facing these moments repeatedly in a singular session.  And (ii) the players are (broadly across a collection of many players) more apt understand the causal flow (with respect to both play principles, resolution procedures, and in-fiction dynamics) of action declaration > mechanical resolution > consequence.  

I'm not convinced that this is a "player problem."  Now that isn't to say I'm convinced that its a "GM problem" either.  What I'm convinced of is, regardless of anything else, any action declaration in this situation of "I'm not cowing to this sonuvabitch that wields power ruthlessly and callously...I'm challenging him directly (and maybe his bark is worse than his bite, or his guard won't back his play, or the beleaguered people will rise up against him)" is a completely legitimate action declaration and "the player was bored" is an irrelevant value judgement (which I don't even know to be true, but that is besides the point).  Its a thematically legitimate action declaration in D&D when faced with even Ancient Dragons, kings, let alone low tier lords/barons the like.  The resolution processes, the setting, and the GM should be capable of absorbing that boldness and seeing what happens rather than just shutting it down.  I mean, even if you're just doing Charisma (Intimidate) vs a DC 20 (with a 10 % chance of success...or a 10 % chance of success and a further 10 % chance of success with cost/complication if you're using that 5e module) to see if that is capable of revealing a Flaw (perhaps, "My Captain is becoming a mutinous bastard")...that is at least something.  Personally, I think that any NPC that doesn't have some sort of interesting and diverse Ideal, Bond, Flaw composite that any PC can hook into to leverage for subsequent social interaction is very poorly designed.  

With respect, a module with a pivotal NPC interaction that is nearly the social equivalent of the classic (and terribly dull) Anti-magic Zone block (to shut down the overpowered Mage's ability to circumvent an obstacle/challenge) in classic D&D exploration should be under the lens more and (if it were capable) have a bit more self-reflection.


----------



## Imaculata

Players can sometimes be having a bad day. In the past I've offered to rewind the action after one of my players made actions that he came to regret, due to not being in a good mood. We are all human beings, and in the end it is just a game, not a gospel.


----------



## Campbell

@Lanefan 

My preferred solution for we all want different things dilemma is to just try to follow the directives of the game we are playing. In the absence of clear direction we make up an agenda and broad principles for this particular run of the game. Basically treat a roleplaying game like it were any other game.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> Well, they generally don't make traps that work that way anymore that I'm aware of, and in my opinion that's a good thing. If I was running such a module, perhaps an older one converted to 5E, then I'd alter that to give some kind of save or check, or otherwise make it very clear that there is a very certain outcome at risk.
> 
> And I think that stance probably also explains why I don't like the idea of PCs being executed without significant chance for the players to affect the outcome through actions and rolls.
> 
> I'm not a fan of save or die, generally speaking. Especially when there's a range of possibilities available.



Both save-or-die and straight-up die have a place in a game where the world really is out to kill you; where it's a game of war rather than sport in more realms than just combat.



> So I think my stance on consequences was called into question....and I think that maybe it's a matter of punishment versus consequence? Or maybe consequence for character versus player, as you and I touched on earlier. I'm not as concerned with consequence for the player.
> 
> I am all for meaningful consequence for the characters.



I actually think we agree on this much.  However, you then go on to say this:


> But there are any number of consequences....degrees of potential consequences....that we could assign to the situation. I think going to imprisonment followed by execution is a bit of a case of jumping the gun, and I'd only do so if I thought it would be compelling to do so, and if I knew there were ways to continue playing.



That you're worrying about a) whether it's compelling and b) whether there's ways to continue playing both tell me you are very much concerned with consequence for the player.

There's always a way to continue playing provided at least one PC survives and-or remains free, and that's that those players whose PCs didn't survive either roll up new ones for the survivo(s) to recruit or hope the survivor(s) find a way of reviving the dead or otherwise getting the others back in play.



> Well, sure, a GM should play the NPCs as he thinks is appropriate, similar to PCs. But the outcomes of their actions are what we're talking about. If there's risk of failure, then rolls are needed.



From what I can glean about the actual module being played it seems both the tyrant and his guards are relatively weak, thus yes there's significant doubt as to whether they'd successfully be able to arrest or detain or kill the PCs: it might have to be played out as an actual combat.

But in a situation where the PCs have just attacked a reigning mad-tyrant monarch in his throne room and thus can reasonably expect to be horribly outgunned by those present (which is a situation more worthy of discussion, I think) then jumping straight to imprisonment and-or execution is completely in play.  For a well-known fictional example, consider attacking King Joffree in his throne room at King's Landing when his guards and court are present. The only question will be how long Joffree drags out the deaths of the PCs.



> I think establishing stakes is a big part of players making meaningful choices, so I agree with you there. They need to know the situation, and if they don't already, then the GM should try to display that for them in some way, barring some kind of attack on sight situation.



When there's a reasonable opportunity to establish stakes, do it.  I don't, however, give players/PCs info they wouldn't otherwise be able to learn - particularly if they make no effort to investigate or gather info - even if it means the PCs are standing in to their deaths.



> It's not about short or long term. It's about favoring the internal consistency of the fiction over people enjoying themselves. That's not something I want to do. Ideally, there's no need to choose, but if it comes up, then I have to prioritize the play experience.



Actually it is about short or long term.

A glaring inconsistency in a short game isn't going to have long-lasting effect, because by the time it otherwise might the game has ended.  In this case you-as-DM can bend consistency all over the place and nobody's likely to notice.

But in a long game, whatever I do in the here-and-now in the name of a good story is something I'm then going to be stuck with as a precedent for maybe the next ten years or more, which means I seriously have to mind my p's and q's in order to avoid potentially sacrificing lots of future enjoyment just for the sake of a here-and-now moment.



> I suppose that could be the case. I mean, if things go wrong in my game, I'm sure that I'm at least partially to blame, and I don't think that I would try and avoid blame in such a case. But I think a lot of times, it's easier for a player to accept something happening as a result of the dice than as a result of DM choice.



Ideally the DM is every bit as neutral as the dice are.  Ideally. 

Reality may vary. 



> I suppose it depends on what you think the mechanics are for, I guess.



Regarding actions during the run of play: usually for resolving things that cannot be resolved through in-character role-play at the table - the physical stuff, as I mentioned in prior posts.


----------



## Lanefan

Campbell said:


> I wanted to address something that has come up a couple times in this thread. There seems to be this idea that the campaign or story could be ruined by actions one of the player characters take. I really do not think our games or our characters are these fragile things that need protection. I contend the opposite can often be true. Exposing the things we love to real adversity or genuine transformative change is when we find out who they really are and what the world is really like. Play is really only interesting in motion.
> 
> At the end of the day none of us can really say what is or is not the right call for any moment of play. It is a judgement call and it will never be perfect. We should not expect it to be. Part of what makes this medium so compelling is how raw, authentic, and messy it is. I think we all owe it to ourselves to embrace the mess.
> 
> This passage from one of my favorite blogs gets to the heart of how stories are seldom really ruined.



Oddly enough, I agree with what you say here but not entirely with the blog you quoted.

The story can be changed, altered or amended in a myriad of ways both minor and major - but it can never in the end be truly ruined unless it is outright ended by somethng like a TPK.  Even someone maliciously out to wreck the story is only going to end up changing that story to something different. "Ruined" is in the eye of the beholder; and while one person at the table (usually but not always the DM!) may think that some unexpected changes that just happened are a story-telling disaster, another might think the story just improved a hundred-fold.



> My preferred solution for we all want different things dilemma is to just try to follow the directives of the game we are playing. In the absence of clear direction we make up an agenda and broad principles for this particular run of the game. Basically treat a roleplaying game like it were any other game.



Thing is, "any other game" has far more constraints (borders) and directives on it than does an RPG.

Even though many RPGs have tomes full of rules they're still way less constrained in some ways: there's no final endgame, there's no outright win condition, there's few if any limits on what can be done within the game's parameters, and many of those parameters are guidelines rather than hard rules anyway.  A player in an RPG has gobs more freedom when it comes to in-game action than a player in pretty much any other game.

Treating it like it were any other game becomes, then, somewhat self-defeating.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Sadras said:


> He should tolerate it long enough so as not to be disruptive during a game, and certainly not while everyone else is having fun.
> 
> If I am bored for multiple sessions that is on me as a player if I have not spoken up or have not left the group, but it certainly does not give me the right to disrupt the fun of others.




I don't disagree. I just don't know if we can say all this for certain....whether he was bored, whether he thought he was doing the "right" thing by calling out the NPC. 

There are plenty of times where I've had a NPC with whom I expected the PCs to speak, but then watched surprised as they attacked. It turns out that what I expected wasn't as obvious to the players as I thought it would be. And then there's always the fact that, as has been stated, beating up bad guys is part and parcel of D&D, and that the game kind of pushes things toward combat because that's where 75% of the game's mechanics are. 

I think I've learned from those instances, and now I work to position things more clearly, and I also try not to expect too much ahead of time....I let the players do what they want to do, rather than trying to get them to do specific things, generally speaking. 

I've also seen plenty of examples where the PCs try one approach, and for whatever reason it doesn't go well, and then one player declares an action along another path, and things then proceed that way.....and the other players are relieved.

So is it always disruptive to the game for one player to seek an alternate path to others? I wouldn't answer yes to this....I think it varies. The player in question seemed to think that his actions were a problem after the fact, and he apologized.....so I don't know if his intention was to disrupt or end anyone else's fun so much as to try and have some himself. Again, incomplete picture, so it's hard to say for sure here.


----------



## Manbearcat

This conversation would be a lot more productive if we stop speculating about boredom or insincerity or actual malicious intent by the player.

If a disruptive player does something clearly disruptive, then this thread is 100 % pointless. It can be summed up in “deal with your disruptive player outside of the game.” (Uninteresting) Conversation_over.

What is interesting is if you assume sincere play and legitimate thematic advocation for PC by the player.

What then?

How do you cast THAT PLAYER with THAT ACTION DECLARATION who challenged this NPC?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> Both save-or-die and straight-up die have a place in a game where the world really is out to kill you; where it's a game of war rather than sport in more realms than just combat.
> 
> I actually think we agree on this much.  However, you then go on to say this:
> That you're worrying about a) whether it's compelling and b) whether there's ways to continue playing both tell me you are very much concerned with consequence for the player.




That's a fair point. I suppose I should be clearer. 

My primary goal of play is for everyone to have as much fun as possible. So anything that happens in play is always happening with that goal in mind. Beyond that, though, I'm not as concerned about consequences for the players as I am for the characters. So in this situation, the characters have attempted something very dangerous and with potentially serious consequences. I don't look at it as a way of teaching the players a lesson and so on. Things happen to the characters, not the players. 

Yes, players will have feelings about what happens, but even if something negative like PC death were to happen, and that made the player sad, that's a response to the fiction, not the goal of the fiction. Hopefully, the player is engaged and is sad the same way a reader or viewer might get sad reading or watching a story where a character dies.



Lanefan said:


> There's always a way to continue playing provided at least one PC survives and-or remains free, and that's that those players whose PCs didn't survive either roll up new ones for the survivo(s) to recruit or hope the survivor(s) find a way of reviving the dead or otherwise getting the others back in play.




Yeah, I agree....or I agree that there should be. Sometimes a game dos fall apart....but as the blogpost that @Campbell shared, the fiction itself can't be ruined. I agree with that. There is always a way forward in the fiction, but the actual game can fall apart if participants are not engaged, or have otherwise lost interest, or if their goals of play are so radically different that there's no finding common ground. But none of that is specifically a problem with the fiction.



Lanefan said:


> From what I can glean about the actual module being played it seems both the tyrant and his guards are relatively weak, thus yes there's significant doubt as to whether they'd successfully be able to arrest or detain or kill the PCs: it might have to be played out as an actual combat.
> 
> But in a situation where the PCs have just attacked a reigning mad-tyrant monarch in his throne room and thus can reasonably expect to be horribly outgunned by those present (which is a situation more worthy of discussion, I think) then jumping straight to imprisonment and-or execution is completely in play.  For a well-known fictional example, consider attacking King Joffree in his throne room at King's Landing when his guards and court are present. The only question will be how long Joffree drags out the deaths of the PCs.




I think it really depends on the comparative level of the PCs and the NPCs. We don't know what level the PCs in the OP were, so it's hard to say for sure. If they were 3rd or lower, maybe this would be something beyond them. At about 4th level, I think that stops being the case, and at 5th or above it's pretty much a moot point.




Lanefan said:


> When there's a reasonable opportunity to establish stakes, do it.  I don't, however, give players/PCs info they wouldn't otherwise be able to learn - particularly if they make no effort to investigate or gather info - even if it means the PCs are standing in to their deaths.




I try to give them such cues in whatever way it makes sense in the fiction, but I lean more toward generous sharing. I tend to think PCs should be competent folks, and I think that my ability to fully portray the fictional world is limited when compared to a person's actual ability to perceive their world.....so I'll give them pretty clear cues so that they can make meaningful choices. I do agree that the less they try to learn or look into things, the less I'll give, but I am guessing I'm more generous on average than you would be in the same situation.



Lanefan said:


> Actually it is about short or long term.
> 
> A glaring inconsistency in a short game isn't going to have long-lasting effect, because by the time it otherwise might the game has ended.  In this case you-as-DM can bend consistency all over the place and nobody's likely to notice.
> 
> But in a long game, whatever I do in the here-and-now in the name of a good story is something I'm then going to be stuck with as a precedent for maybe the next ten years or more, which means I seriously have to mind my p's and q's in order to avoid potentially sacrificing lots of future enjoyment just for the sake of a here-and-now moment.




Not really. A "glaring inconsistency" is only as much of an issue as you make it. You can literally hand wave the inconsistency away. You don't like to do that, and that's fine....it's your preference, and that's fine. Others won't care as much, even if their campaign is longer. 

My 5e campaign is actually a continuation of the campaign my players and I had as kids, along with some other unfinished campaigns we've had over the years. So it's pretty long term in that regard. However, if I have a player who wants to do something cool that they're interested in, and it might conflict with some detail from back in the day, I'm not going to worry about it. The fiction can be changed, the conflict can be explained, and so on. 



Lanefan said:


> Ideally the DM is every bit as neutral as the dice are.  Ideally.
> 
> Reality may vary.
> 
> Regarding actions during the run of play: usually for resolving things that cannot be resolved through in-character role-play at the table - the physical stuff, as I mentioned in prior posts.




So a DM should be as neutral as dice.....but you don't think that dice would actually help him achieve that?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Manbearcat said:


> This conversation would be a lot more productive if we stop speculating about boredom or insincerity or actual malicious intent by the player.
> 
> If a disruptive player does something clearly disruptive, then this thread is 100 % pointless. It can be summed up in “deal with your disruptive player outside of the game.” (Uninteresting) Conversation_over.
> 
> What is interesting is if you assume sincere play and legitimate thematic advocation for PC by the player.
> 
> What then?
> 
> How do you cast THAT PLAYER with THAT ACTION DECLARATION who challenged this NPC?




I posted earlier how my players handled the Vallaki situation, and it was so similar to how things started off in the OP that I've been very surprised at how many people seem to frown on a PC refusing to negotiate or cooperate with a villain. The burgomaster is a villain. 

Whatever confrontation comes about, I think the book has given enough of a framework to allow for it. So in this case, ultimately the PCs openly fought the Burgomaster and his forces, and then they fled the town as a result. That's really not a problem in the book.....there are other locations where the PCs can go. The Burgomaster's authority ends at the borders of his town. 

Then what happens in Vallaki in the PCs' absence? Does it remain exactly the same? Does the fact that some folks stood up to the Burgomaster embolden others? Did the loss of any of his guards leave him open to attack from others? And so on. 

The situation can change as a result of the PCs' actions in a number of ways.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> I posted earlier how my players handled the Vallaki situation, and it was so similar to how things started off in the OP that I've been very surprised at how many people seem to frown on a PC refusing to negotiate or cooperate with a villain. The burgomaster is a villain.




I think what is being frowned on isn't that he refused to negotiate. It's that he refused to let others *continue to negotiate*, once they'd started to do so. It doesn't seem as though he objected strongly to talking to the Burgomaster beforehand, so I can see why everyone was caught badly off-guard (which probably didn't make DMing what happened next any easier).


----------



## Fanaelialae

hawkeyefan said:


> I posted earlier how my players handled the Vallaki situation, and it was so similar to how things started off in the OP that I've been very surprised at how many people seem to frown on a PC refusing to negotiate or cooperate with a villain. The burgomaster is a villain.
> 
> Whatever confrontation comes about, I think the book has given enough of a framework to allow for it. So in this case, ultimately the PCs openly fought the Burgomaster and his forces, and then they fled the town as a result. That's really not a problem in the book.....there are other locations where the PCs can go. The Burgomaster's authority ends at the borders of his town.
> 
> Then what happens in Vallaki in the PCs' absence? Does it remain exactly the same? Does the fact that some folks stood up to the Burgomaster embolden others? Did the loss of any of his guards leave him open to attack from others? And so on.
> 
> The situation can change as a result of the PCs' actions in a number of ways.



My impression is that it isn't the refusal to negotiate that is being frowned upon. It's that the party was trying to negotiate and this one player decided to sabotage the negotiations. It wasn't even as though the other players decided to agree to something the other player simply couldn't agree to. He killed the negotiation before any provisional agreement could even be reached.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> I think what is being frowned on isn't that he refused to negotiate. It's that he refused to let others *continue to negotiate*, once they'd started to do so. It doesn't seem as though he objected strongly to talking to the Burgomaster beforehand, so I can see why everyone was caught badly off-guard (which probably didn't make DMing what happened next any easier).





Fanaelialae said:


> My impression is that it isn't the refusal to negotiate that is being frowned upon. It's that the party was trying to negotiate and this one player decided to sabotage the negotiations. It wasn't even as though the other players decided to agree to something the other player simply couldn't agree to. He killed the negotiation before any provisional agreement could even be reached.




This is a valid point you both make. I'm not trying to discount that. I'm just trying to not assume his intention was to deny the other players having fun. 

We have been told that his decision was born "partially of boredom". So I'm assuming there was more to it. We're missing a lot of details since we weren't there. What was being negotiated? What class/alignment/beliefs does the PC hold that may flavor how he behaves toward a person such as the Burgomaster? And so on.

Let's look at this more generally.....if a situation comes up in your game, and two party members want to talk to a villain, and a third refuses and instead verbally confronts the villain.....how do you handle it? 

Do you allow play to proceed?

Do you pause and let the players discuss as a group, and then proceed once they've come to some kind of consensus? 

Do you shut down the one player in favor of the majority? 

Something else?


----------



## iserith

hawkeyefan said:


> Let's look at this more generally.....if a situation comes up in your game, and two party members want to talk to a villain, and a third refuses and instead verbally confronts the villain.....how do you handle it?




It would just never come up in my game. The players get on the same page and stay on the same page whenever they are faced with a challenge. A culture exists in our group of accepting other people's ideas and adding to them rather than negating or undermining them.


----------



## hawkeyefan

iserith said:


> It would just never come up in my game. The players get on the same page and stay on the same page whenever they are faced with a challenge. A culture exists in our group of accepting other people's ideas and adding to them rather than negating or undermining them.




Yeah, that's a perfectly valid approach.

When I asked those questions, I wasn't trying to imply that there is one answer.

For my group, it will vary a bit. Sometimes, conflict among the group can be fun, so we would let it play out. But if it was a source of frustration, we'd likely pause and discuss. 

I'm curious what others think.


----------



## Nagol

hawkeyefan said:


> This is a valid point you both make. I'm not trying to discount that. I'm just trying to not assume his intention was to deny the other players having fun.
> 
> We have been told that his decision was born "partially of boredom". So I'm assuming there was more to it. We're missing a lot of details since we weren't there. What was being negotiated? What class/alignment/beliefs does the PC hold that may flavor how he behaves toward a person such as the Burgomaster? And so on.
> 
> Let's look at this more generally.....if a situation comes up in your game, and two party members want to talk to a villain, and a third refuses and instead verbally confronts the villain.....how do you handle it?
> 
> Do you allow play to proceed?
> 
> Do you pause and let the players discuss as a group, and then proceed once they've come to some kind of consensus?
> 
> Do you shut down the one player in favor of the majority?
> 
> Something else?




This occurs not infrequently in campaigns I run.   I never interfere in player decision-making unless an outside force is doing so in the world.

Should different PC sub-groups provide different stimulus, the environment will adjust its response.   The environment responds to stimuli in priority order.   If sub-group A wants to provide a diplomatic or covert action and sub-group B provides a direct aggressive action, the environment will respond to sub-group B's violence as that is a more pressing concern than talking or potentially noticing something sneaky happening.  Sub-group A's endeavour may be tainted by their association with sub group B (assuming it is known) simply because being friends of enemies makes one less trustworthy.

The PCs will respond to each other as well.  If one PC acts contrary to the group's considered plans enough times, it likely becomes a NPC.  If the group splits into a couple of factions, then they can either hash their tactics out amongst themselves before moving ahead or deal with the fallout from acting at odds with one another.  If one group wants to hold back and one group wants to forge ahead then the group that wants to forge ahead will do so unless the other groups can find a way to prevent them in-game.

I do not take sides other than telling the group whether or not I am willing to run a side campaign.  If I'm not willing, then the players need to maintain PCs that will work together even if that means some of the current PCs leave.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> Let's look at this more generally.....if a situation comes up in your game, and two party members want to talk to a villain, and a third refuses and instead verbally confronts the villain.....how do you handle it?




The exact situation hasn't come up in the games I'm running. Both campaigns, though, have split when they've spent time in cities--and urban environments seem to be the ones where a party is most likely to want to do different things. Both groups I'm DMing for have taken ... hours, at least, to decide on a course of action, but once the groups have decided they've stayed signed-on. I guess this means the players work it out among themselves--like @Nagol above, I don't interfere with the players'/characters' planning.


----------



## Fanaelialae

hawkeyefan said:


> This is a valid point you both make. I'm not trying to discount that. I'm just trying to not assume his intention was to deny the other players having fun.
> 
> We have been told that his decision was born "partially of boredom". So I'm assuming there was more to it. We're missing a lot of details since we weren't there. What was being negotiated? What class/alignment/beliefs does the PC hold that may flavor how he behaves toward a person such as the Burgomaster? And so on.
> 
> Let's look at this more generally.....if a situation comes up in your game, and two party members want to talk to a villain, and a third refuses and instead verbally confronts the villain.....how do you handle it?
> 
> Do you allow play to proceed?
> 
> Do you pause and let the players discuss as a group, and then proceed once they've come to some kind of consensus?
> 
> Do you shut down the one player in favor of the majority?
> 
> Something else?



The players would agree beforehand as to what the approach would be. If they agreed to negotiate, they wouldn't torpedo the negotiations if the other players were still negotiating. If they wanted to raise objections, they would do so either before negotiations commenced or after they concluded (while the group discussed whether to agree to the deal).


----------



## billd91

hawkeyefan said:


> Let's look at this more generally.....if a situation comes up in your game, and two party members want to talk to a villain, and a third refuses and instead verbally confronts the villain.....how do you handle it?
> 
> Do you allow play to proceed?
> 
> Do you pause and let the players discuss as a group, and then proceed once they've come to some kind of consensus?
> 
> Do you shut down the one player in favor of the majority?
> 
> Something else?




I think it depends on the table. Most of the time, the group is usually pretty cooperative. They will generally defer to at least giving the best supported plan an honest try without torpedoing it in its midst. But, in the past, I've also played with groups that aren't as... courteous? deferential? cooperative? united? In those cases, we've generally resorted to more personal punishments for the PC involved like disavowing their actions and leaving them to their just deserts. 

As a GM, I generally don't interfere when a PC does something that undermines the rest. I leave that up to the rest of the players to decide how to deal with it. But if it's really egregious or seems kind of mean spirited, I might ask them if they're sure that's what they want to do. That usually serves as a signal to rethink. And if they decide to go through with it, then we'll see what happens from there.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> That's a fair point. I suppose I should be clearer.
> 
> My primary goal of play is for everyone to have as much fun as possible. So anything that happens in play is always happening with that goal in mind. Beyond that, though, I'm not as concerned about consequences for the players as I am for the characters. So in this situation, the characters have attempted something very dangerous and with potentially serious consequences. I don't look at it as a way of teaching the players a lesson and so on. Things happen to the characters, not the players.
> 
> Yes, players will have feelings about what happens, but even if something negative like PC death were to happen, and that made the player sad, that's a response to the fiction, not the goal of the fiction. Hopefully, the player is engaged and is sad the same way a reader or viewer might get sad reading or watching a story where a character dies.
> 
> Yeah, I agree....or I agree that there should be. Sometimes a game dos fall apart....but as the blogpost that @Campbell shared, the fiction itself can't be ruined. I agree with that. There is always a way forward in the fiction, but the actual game can fall apart if participants are not engaged, or have otherwise lost interest, or if their goals of play are so radically different that there's no finding common ground. But none of that is specifically a problem with the fiction.



We're all good thus far. 



> I think it really depends on the comparative level of the PCs and the NPCs. We don't know what level the PCs in the OP were, so it's hard to say for sure. If they were 3rd or lower, maybe this would be something beyond them. At about 4th level, I think that stops being the case, and at 5th or above it's pretty much a moot point.



In the specific module, maybe; but I don't know the module.  I'm trying to talk about a perhaps-hypothetical scene where one or more PCs attack a true King, hence my Joffree example.



> I try to give them such cues in whatever way it makes sense in the fiction, but I lean more toward generous sharing. I tend to think PCs should be competent folks, and I think that my ability to fully portray the fictional world is limited when compared to a person's actual ability to perceive their world.....so I'll give them pretty clear cues so that they can make meaningful choices. I do agree that the less they try to learn or look into things, the less I'll give, but I am guessing I'm more generous on average than you would be in the same situation.



Fair enough. 



> Not really. A "glaring inconsistency" is only as much of an issue as you make it. You can literally hand wave the inconsistency away. You don't like to do that, and that's fine....it's your preference, and that's fine. Others won't care as much, even if their campaign is longer.
> 
> My 5e campaign is actually a continuation of the campaign my players and I had as kids, along with some other unfinished campaigns we've had over the years. So it's pretty long term in that regard. However, if I have a player who wants to do something cool that they're interested in, and it might conflict with some detail from back in the day, I'm not going to worry about it. The fiction can be changed, the conflict can be explained, and so on.



As far as possible, in the name of internal consistency I'm very big on precedent within a campaign: if thing X worked in manner Y once then that's how it will normally work for all time.

Which is why I'm loath to reboot old campaigns.  I've no idea what specific rulings I made 20 years ago in my previous campaign, and if I used today's rulings it wouldn't be the same game at all.  Even things as basic as the level-advance charts get re-done and tweaked each time out.

That said, if a character from an old campaign (or from someone else's game) finds a way in to the current one it gets converted to the current rules, as that's how things work on this world. 



> So a DM should be as neutral as dice.....but you don't think that dice would actually help him achieve that?



<_as Jack Sparrow_> If a DM's already as neutral as dice she doesn't need dice to be neutral, does she, mate?


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> Let's look at this more generally.....if a situation comes up in your game, and two party members want to talk to a villain, and a third refuses and instead verbally confronts the villain.....how do you handle it?
> 
> Do you allow play to proceed?



Yes.


----------



## Lanefan

Nagol said:


> This occurs not infrequently in campaigns I run.   I never interfere in player decision-making unless an outside force is doing so in the world.



If I-as-DM have any NPC adventurers (i.e. full party members, not just henches) in the party they'll have a say just like anyone else, but will usually in the end do what they're told.



> Should different PC sub-groups provide different stimulus, the environment will adjust its response.   The environment responds to stimuli in priority order.   If sub-group A wants to provide a diplomatic or covert action and sub-group B provides a direct aggressive action, the environment will respond to sub-group B's violence as that is a more pressing concern than talking or potentially noticing something sneaky happening.  Sub-group A's endeavour may be tainted by their association with sub group B (assuming it is known) simply because being friends of enemies makes one less trustworthy.



Absolutely!



> The PCs will respond to each other as well.  If one PC acts contrary to the group's considered plans enough times, it likely becomes a NPC.



How can this happen?  Players can't force another player to sign over a PC to the DM as an NPC.

They can boot the PC from the party, but by no means does that make it an NPC: a PC always belongs to its player unless that player declares otherwise, right?



> If the group splits into a couple of factions, then they can either hash their tactics out amongst themselves before moving ahead or deal with the fallout from acting at odds with one another.  If one group wants to hold back and one group wants to forge ahead then the group that wants to forge ahead will do so unless the other groups can find a way to prevent them in-game.
> 
> I do not take sides other than telling the group whether or not I am willing to run a side campaign.  If I'm not willing, then the players need to maintain PCs that will work together even if that means some of the current PCs leave.



There's also some characters - and some players - to whom 'plan' is a four-letter word; and who are best left out of any planning process 'cause they're gonna do what they're gonna do no matter what, and what they do is either gonna help or it isn't.  I don't mind this at all.

I'll happily run side campaigns; but sometimes it means we play one group one week and the other group the next (in these cases the players without PCs often roll up new ones, thus there's now two complete parties).


----------



## hawkeyefan

Fanaelialae said:


> The players would agree beforehand as to what the approach would be. If they agreed to negotiate, they wouldn't torpedo the negotiations if the other players were still negotiating. If they wanted to raise objections, they would do so either before negotiations commenced or after they concluded (while the group discussed whether to agree to the deal).




So your players have never decided on an approach, and then had something happen in the midst of it that may change their minds? Or some of their minds?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> We're all good thus far.
> 
> In the specific module, maybe; but I don't know the module.  I'm trying to talk about a perhaps-hypothetical scene where one or more PCs attack a true King, hence my Joffree example.




Sure. I think we agree overall. I think if the power levels are that mismatched, you can just as easily play things out. In most cases PCs will quickly realize if they're in trouble when they see a roll of 5 and the NPC hits them. 

There are circumstances where I wouldn't bother rolling it out, though, but they'd probably have to be pretty extreme, or there would have to be other compelling reasons for the decision.



Lanefan said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> As far as possible, in the name of internal consistency I'm very big on precedent within a campaign: if thing X worked in manner Y once then that's how it will normally work for all time.
> 
> Which is why I'm loath to reboot old campaigns.  I've no idea what specific rulings I made 20 years ago in my previous campaign, and if I used today's rulings it wouldn't be the same game at all.  Even things as basic as the level-advance charts get re-done and tweaked each time out.
> 
> That said, if a character from an old campaign (or from someone else's game) finds a way in to the current one it gets converted to the current rules, as that's how things work on this world.




I find that consistency of that sort doesn't really matter. One group of PCs in my 5E campaign is actually made up of characters we originally played in the AD&D and 2E days, and a few from 3E. We just recreated them in the new rules according to the spirit of the characters, and they work quite fine. XP Totals and the like aren't fictionally relevant, so I don't see the hangup on that. 



Lanefan said:


> <_as Jack Sparrow_> If a DM's already as neutral as dice she doesn't need dice to be neutral, does she, mate?




I find the idea that a person could be that consistently neutral to be a bit unrealistic. Even if they thought they were being so, there is still a good chance for bias at a subconscious level. 

But I also don't think a GM needs to be neutral. I think a GM should be a fan of the PCs, but should also be hard on them.


----------



## Fanaelialae

hawkeyefan said:


> So your players have never decided on an approach, and then had something happen in the midst of it that may change their minds? Or some of their minds?



Yep, but if the change isn't unanimous, they allow the players who are still engaged with the scene to play it out to it's conclusion.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> The OP has, I think, described the player as "probably bored" and "a long-time friend." I get the feeling the play was more impulsive/thoughtless, followed by a species of stubborn, than it was malicious. Whether that qualifies it as bad-faith play may depend on who's deciding.





Fenris-77 said:


> From the description, at least part of the player decision making stemmed form boredom. That doesn't always result in bad faith play, but it certainly can.





hawkeyefan said:


> Bad faith in this sense seems to mean "disruptive". And although I do think that this player's choice disrupted where the game was going, I don't know if that's bad. It certainly could be. Is boredom a reason to do that kind of thing? Is it justified? I don't know, that's hard to answer.
> 
> What's the point at which we accept that boredom should no longer be tolerated by a player?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I've seen bored players ruin things. I've also seen bored players shake things up and get them going again. I've also been in games that bored me, and I've tolerated it often, but on a few occasions, I've done something about it.



To what extent is a player expected to play a boring game? "Boring" is a word that covers a wide range of possibilities.

For instance, if I sit down to play a game of five hundred or bridge, I have to expect to sit and observe whle others play their cards. But (in my view) someone who takes 5 minutes to decided on their play in a casual game of cards is being pretty discourteous! I've plenty of times been in situations where other players - in a card game, a board game, or similar - urge a very slow player to speed things up because it's not fair on everyone else.

In the context of a RPG, what power does a player have to speed things up or make things not boring? There are a few things that seem relevant First, at many tables and across the play culture of RPGs there can be a tendency to favour _in game_ or even _in fiction_ approaches as opposed to overtly meta-conversations. Second, the disinctive feature of RPGs - that they invovle cooperatively (in some sense of that word) establising a shared fiction - means that players have a _responsibility_ to use their authority over their PCs to make things interesting rather than boring. Third, a player may therefore look for _opportunities_ to use that authority and hence declare actions for their PCs that - from their perspective - will spice things up or move things along.

It's a long time since I played (as opposed to GMed) a D&D campaign. In that campaign much of the action involved the GM dealing with one particular player (whose PC was the prophesied one, naturally). The rest of us entertained ourselves by establishing a pretty fun intraparty dynamic, set of subsests, our own theories about the meaning of the various prophetic texts, etc. The GM largely ignored all this stuff and - in the end - ended up "blowing up" the campaign world and thus invalidating all the fiction the rest of the players had created by teleporting the PCs 100 years into the future. As a result the campaign ended shortly after when I and others quit.

As I said, _boring _covers a wide range of experiences and in the context of a RPG can reflect a wide range of ways that the game is ending up. But I don't really see that a player is _olbiged_ to sit through a tedious scene where nothing is progressing and the fiction is not moving forward. Was the OP describing such a scene? I dont know; I wasn't there. Some of the posts others have made about this module make me think that's a possibility.



prabe said:


> Sure, characters grow. Players come to an understanding of their characters that changes as a result of in-game experiences. IMO this is usually a good thing (one of the characters I'm playing continues to surprise me).
> 
> That's not the same thing (or it doesn't seem to me to be the same thing) as having the world react to the PCs in a way that breaks my suspension of disbelief. If it's not believable to me that the Mad Tyrant would do anything other than make a serious effort to execute the PCs who insulted and attacked him, he's going to make that effort to do that. If he has the resources to do it (this place isn't all that well-off, as I understand it, so he might not) the PCs are going to find it very difficult to escape without outside help, which might also not be believable if it has to come from outside the party.





prabe said:


> Yeah. If you've telegraphed something about an NPC, you have less latitude as a GM, I think, when the players push that NPC's buttons. I also think there's a limit to how hard a GM should work to protect the characters from the consequences of the players' choices--and attacking someone with the authority and disposition to have you executed is a choice.





FrogReaver said:


> I think the problem was that the mad tyrant was being played as if:
> 1.  The pcs were peasants
> 2.  He gave the PC’s an audience with no goal in mind for his part.
> 
> thus, you end up with tyrant who calls for guards at the slightest insult with no other meaningful personality traits for the DM to highlight.  It’s impossible for the pcs to interact with such a character meaningfully. About the only meaningful reaction they can get is guards or off with their heads because they will nearly undoubtedly offend me the NPC - Especially if they play their pc as heroic in the slightest.



I think FrogReaver's post here is pretty insightful.

What has been "telegraphed" about this NPC? That he's mad and angry? That he wants to see the PCs (or perhaps that the PCs "have" to meet with him because that's what the module says)? What expectations are the players meant to have? What are they supposed to be doing in the scene? Listening to the GM? Going along with the mad NPC? Is any back-and-forth expected, and if so about what?

Which also relates to the suspension of disbelief. Where is it established that the Mad Tyrant would execute anyone who insults him? In the GM's mind? As a result of reading the module? This looks like what @Manbearcat has called "GM setting solitaire play".

I think that a GM who sticks to _an image formed in his/her mind_ - whether via his/her own invention or from reading the module - and then uses that to inflict "realistic" consequences - wher the realism is only in his/her mind - is likely to run into trouble as soon as the players try and play their own preferences or conceptions of the fiction.



FrogReaver said:


> I can't speak for the OP but I imagine that when the DM had the Tyrant call for guards it wasn't to arrest and execute the PC.  Instead I imagine it would have been to escort them away.  But the problem is that the players don't know what 'guards!" means.  To them it could just as easily be execution, imprisonment, all their gear taken, etc.  It's easy for me to see why such uncertain stakes could provoke a player to believe that the chance of death via their actions was justified because they also had a chance of death if they failed to act.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In this case i believe the player who tried to take the Mad Tyrant hostage was acting in good faith and that he was doing it to try and save his friends lives by relying on known grappling mechanics to put team PC in a position to bypass the guards.



I fully agree with this too. That's why I've said that it was the GM, not the players, who resorted to violence. And why I think the idea that the players should have just had their PCs surrender is unrealistic. In practice, surrendering is thorwing themselvs on the mercy of the GM. Where do they get the information about what the result of that will be? How are they meant to know what the GM thinks is a "realistic" consequence of surrendering as opposed to fighting?


----------



## Lanefan

Fanaelialae said:


> Yep, but if the change isn't unanimous, they allow the players who are still engaged with the scene to play it out to it's conclusion.



So - self-censor?

At the least, those who self-censor wil end up frustrated and-or bored.

At the worst, if the change in scene represents a threat to the PCs that those players/PCs have realized while the talkers haven't, their declining to act could leave the PCs - all of 'em - in a world o' hurt.

In neither case is this good.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> I find the idea that a person could be that consistently neutral to be a bit unrealistic. Even if they thought they were being so, there is still a good chance for bias at a subconscious level.



Hence my emphasis on 'ideally' when I first brought this up. 



> But I also don't think a GM needs to be neutral. I think a GM should be a fan of the PCs, but should also be hard on them.



After the fact I'll celebrate the PCs' achievements along with the players.

During the fact I'm cheerin' for the monsters - they're my team, dammit!


----------



## pemerton

iserith said:


> Those rules state that the DM decides if something has an uncertain outcome, full stop. Tasks don't have an uncertain outcomes or meaningful consequences for failure by default.



Who do you think is denying this? The discussion is about _the principles according to which a GM should make that decision_.



iserith said:


> if you're going to say there should have been some Charisma checks here and quote rules to make your case, you can't leave out the rules that say it's up to the DM to decide that if the task qualifies for a check.



I am asserting that the existence of the rules for ability checks - including the description of what those are for, and what CHA chekcs are for as a special case of those general rules - is one of the things that is relevant to the GM's decision.

For instance, given that the rules for ability and CHA checks tell us that CHA "measures your ability to interact effectively with others" and that "an ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training", it follows that a GM who decides the tyrant's reaction without calling for a check has decided that _no amount of innate talent or training in respect of interacting with others can influence this outcome_. When should a GM make such a decision? According to what principles? With what goals and hopes in mind?

Those are the questions to which I am offering some answers.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> I've never met anyone who would be upset when I didn't allow the PC a roll to jump a 3 mile wide canyon.



Even if they're playing The Hulk?

Have you ever had a player who is playing an ordinary person sincerely declare the action _I jump the 3 mile wide canyon_?

I'm assuming not, which is why I think it's more interesting to focus on actual instances of sincere action declaration - which to my mind is what we have in the OP.



Lanefan said:


> In practice, unless a DM happens to have a group of players who all think the same (or only has one player) and-or who consistently enjoy an extremely similar style of play, it's inevitable that from time to time situations are going to arise where no matter what happens next someone's not going to have fun. The original example around the mad tyrant may be one of these: talking to him isn't fun for some, attacking him isn't fun for others, and walking out of the encounter completely isn't fun for the DM.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> My take on it is if you're having fun keep at it; and if you're not having fun either a) assume that lack of fun will be a temporary state* and suck it up or b) find a way to make it fun.  Personally, I strongly recommend b).



Which perhaps is what the bored player in the OP's game did.


----------



## prabe

Lanefan said:


> So - self-censor?
> 
> At the least, those who self-censor wil end up frustrated and-or bored.




And if they don't, the people who are doing the negotiation will--legitimately--be irritated at least, and probably frustrated. If they felt they were making any headway in the negotiation, they might legitimately be angry. This is probably something the players/party members should sort out, ideally before starting the negotiation. If you (the player) agree to have your character there, you are implicitly agreeing to let that scene play out. If there's something else you want to do, split the party. You'll have to sit through the other PCs negotiating, but you'll have your opportunity to do whatever it is you'd prefer.

If the boredom is going on for whole sessions, then maybe you need to bring it up out-of-game with the GM, rather than crapping on a fellow-player's fun--though I suppose it's possible to have a table that handles things more in-game than that.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Even if they're playing The Hulk?



Having to search for an exception only proves my point.



> Have you ever had a player who is playing an ordinary person sincerely declare the action _I jump the 3 mile wide canyon_?




Not yet, but I have had players sincerely declare any number of impossible actions.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> I posted earlier how my players handled the Vallaki situation, and it was so similar to how things started off in the OP that I've been very surprised at how many people seem to frown on a PC refusing to negotiate or cooperate with a villain. The burgomaster is a villain.



I share your surprise.



iserith said:


> The players get on the same page and stay on the same page whenever they are faced with a challenge. A culture exists in our group of accepting other people's ideas and adding to them rather than negating or undermining them.





Fanaelialae said:


> The players would agree beforehand as to what the approach would be. If they agreed to negotiate, they wouldn't torpedo the negotiations if the other players were still negotiating. If they wanted to raise objections, they would do so either before negotiations commenced or after they concluded (while the group discussed whether to agree to the deal).





Fanaelialae said:


> if the change isn't unanimous, they allow the players who are still engaged with the scene to play it out to it's conclusion.





prabe said:


> I think what is being frowned on isn't that he refused to negotiate. It's that he refused to let others *continue to negotiate*, once they'd started to do so. It doesn't seem as though he objected strongly to talking to the Burgomaster beforehand, so I can see why everyone was caught badly off-guard (which probably didn't make DMing what happened next any easier).





prabe said:


> If you (the player) agree to have your character there, you are implicitly agreeing to let that scene play out.



I think the posts I've described are broaldy overlapping in the approach they set out. It's one approach. It's not the only one.

Suppose negotiations commence on the understanding (eg) that the PCs might buy a widget from a NPC. Then in the course of the negotiations it comes to light that the NPC acquired the widget by steatling it from one of the PC's uncles. Is the player of that PC obliged to keep up the negotiation?

As I said, approaches might differ. The approach that suggested in the passages I've quoted seems to make more sense if we assume that negotiations are something like puzzle or traps to be overcome. To me it makes less sense if we imagine that negotiations might contain moments of revelation or development.

And I personally would find it very strange that at such a moment of revelation or development - ie just when things are becoming most intense for the characters - we would suddenly shift to an out-of-character, meta-level conversation rather than continue playing our PCs. To me that seems more appropriate either to something like a cooperative boardgame, or to a shared storytelling game where we want to all get back onto the same page. But to me it seems to be at odds with the idea that I see as central to RPGIng, which is inhabiting, and declaring actions for, your character.

Of course when declaring actions for one's PC one shouldn't be disruptive or discourteous. But that goes all ways. If the revelation has taken place, the players who want their PCs to keep negotiating are making a call that has implications for another player's PC just as much as that player is making a call that has implications for their PCs.



hawkeyefan said:


> What class/alignment/beliefs does the PC hold that may flavor how he behaves toward a person such as the Burgomaster? And so on.



These are the sorts of things that can produce different reactions, _especially when _a moment of revelation occurs.



hawkeyefan said:


> Let's look at this more generally.....if a situation comes up in your game, and two party members want to talk to a villain, and a third refuses and instead verbally confronts the villain.....how do you handle it?
> 
> Do you allow play to proceed?
> 
> Do you pause and let the players discuss as a group, and then proceed once they've come to some kind of consensus?
> 
> Do you shut down the one player in favor of the majority?
> 
> Something else?



I think I've answered your questions above, though more from the player point-of-view.

From the GM's point of view I need to follow the fiction, but also to keep the game going for all the players. What that second thing requires depends a bit on system, but in D&D - with its strong premise of party play - keeping the game going for all the players means keeping aspects of a scene alive that are relevant to everyone. That's one of the major challenges in being a GM. Experience helps.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Not yet, but I have had players sincerely declare any number of impossible actions.



So why did the player declare them, if they knew they were impossible?

If they didn't know, then how did you the GM know they were impossible?


----------



## iserith

pemerton said:


> Who do you think is denying this? The discussion is about _the principles according to which a GM should make that decision_.




It was rather more about what to do in the aftermath of the OP's decision. Some have piled on to criticize the DM's decisions, but I wasn't there, so I really can't say how I would have ruled. The only thing I can say is that I wouldn't have had several sessions of mostly talking with little action preceding it and I would likely have used the DMG's social interaction rules as a framework for the scene with the baron.



pemerton said:


> I am asserting that the existence of the rules for ability checks - including the description of what those are for, and what CHA chekcs are for as a special case of those general rules - is one of the things that is relevant to the GM's decision.
> 
> For instance, given that the rules for ability and CHA checks tell us that CHA "measures your ability to interact effectively with others" and that "an ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training", it follows that a GM who decides the tyrant's reaction without calling for a check has decided that _no amount of innate talent or training in respect of interacting with others can influence this outcome_. When should a GM make such a decision? According to what principles? With what goals and hopes in mind?
> 
> Those are the questions to which I am offering some answers.




Whatever the DM decides is correct within the scope of the rules, but may or may not contribute to the group achieving the goals of play. If a DM has determined that a specific approach to a PC's goal is impossible, then that's how it is and there's no roll. What is fun to a given group and what the group thinks is an exciting, memorable story, however, will vary.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Lanefan said:


> So - self-censor?
> 
> At the least, those who self-censor wil end up frustrated and-or bored.
> 
> At the worst, if the change in scene represents a threat to the PCs that those players/PCs have realized while the talkers haven't, their declining to act could leave the PCs - all of 'em - in a world o' hurt.
> 
> In neither case is this good.



It's less about self-censoring and more about not sabotaging the agreed upon plan. If there is a need to alter course, the players can have a quick side bar to discuss. 

We agree to it in advance. Hence, if someone thinks a negotiation won't be fun, they have an opportunity to express that. It's a group decision and they are part of that decision. 

Just tonight, we staged an ambush for someone we thought was a murderer. But when he arrived, he behaved unexpectedly and we, through pantomiming, agreed that someone should approach him and talk to him. As my character is the least threatening, I was elected. So I had a 10 minute conversation while the other players watched. Once I was satisfied that an ambush wasn't necessary, I waved them out to join. I've similarly waited patiently while other players have done scenes that I wasn't a part of. 

I don't think it's boring at all, and moreover it's simply good table manners IMO. Players shouldn't typically make unilateral decisions that impact the entire group. Obviously, sometimes that cannot be avoided, but when it can be avoided it should be. YMMV


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> To what extent is a player expected to play a boring game? "Boring" is a word that covers a wide range of possibilities.
> 
> For instance, if I sit down to play a game of five hundred or bridge, I have to expect to sit and observe whle others play their cards. But (in my view) someone who takes 5 minutes to decided on their play in a casual game of cards is being pretty discourteous! I've plenty of times been in situations where other players - in a card game, a board game, or similar - urge a very slow player to speed things up because it's not fair on everyone else.




That's not unreasonable, though as with TRPGs it might depend on table culture, things like how chatty the players are, how well they know the game, the extent to which the game is an excuse to socialize. Some players just play more slowly than others, too. In a competitive game, there might be some gamesmanship involved in pacing your play, as well, though how acceptable that is seems like a table convention (probably not formal enough to be a rule).



pemerton said:


> In the context of a RPG, what power does a player have to speed things up or make things not boring?
> 
> {snip}
> 
> It's a long time since I played (as opposed to GMed) a D&D campaign. In that campaign much of the action involved the GM dealing with one particular player (whose PC was the prophesied one, naturally). The rest of us entertained ourselves by establishing a pretty fun intraparty dynamic, set of subsests, our own theories about the meaning of the various prophetic texts, etc. The GM largely ignored all this stuff and - in the end - ended up "blowing up" the campaign world and thus invalidating all the fiction the rest of the players had created by teleporting the PCs 100 years into the future. As a result the campaign ended shortly after when I and others quit.
> 
> As I said, _boring _covers a wide range of experiences and in the context of a RPG can reflect a wide range of ways that the game is ending up. But I don't really see that a player is _olbiged_ to sit through a tedious scene where nothing is progressing and the fiction is not moving forward. Was the OP describing such a scene? I dont know; I wasn't there. Some of the posts others have made about this module make me think that's a possibility.




So, that DM was clearly a bad DM. I don't get the feeling the OP is. Should you stick in a campaign that is as stifling as you describe? Probably not. Should you allow your fellow players to finish a scene, even if you think it's maybe running a little long? Probably--if there's a pacing problem, or if the campaign is focusing too much on an aspect of the game you don't enjoy, you should take it up with the GM (and maybe your fellow players), before crapping on their fun. Courtesy is a form of thoughtfulness; the player's discourtesy is why I described this play as "thoughtless" above.



pemerton said:


> What has been "telegraphed" about this NPC? That he's mad and angry? That he wants to see the PCs (or perhaps that the PCs "have" to meet with him because that's what the module says)? What expectations are the players meant to have? What are they supposed to be doing in the scene? Listening to the GM? Going along with the mad NPC? Is any back-and-forth expected, and if so about what?




Per the OP:


> Going into the meeting, they knew the ruler was unstable and severely punished any dissent in his land - having heard from various NPCs and seeing it firsthand.




I do not know the adventure any better than you do. Nor do I know how the OP went about conveying that to the PCs. I don't know what the intent of the PCs who were negotiating was. The OP says it was going pretty well--which implies progress was happening, at least in some direction--before the "probably bored" player started insulting the ruler. I don't see anything about "severely punished dissent" that implies "tolerates being insulted." Frankly, he sounds as though he's the sort of weak ruler who'd overreact to any little thing--and even if being insulted is a little thing, being physically assaulted is not.



pemerton said:


> Which also relates to the suspension of disbelief. Where is it established that the Mad Tyrant would execute anyone who insults him? In the GM's mind? As a result of reading the module? This looks like what @Manbearcat has called "GM setting solitaire play".
> 
> I think that a GM who sticks to _an image formed in his/her mind_ - whether via his/her own invention or from reading the module - and then uses that to inflict "realistic" consequences - wher the realism is only in his/her mind - is likely to run into trouble as soon as the players try and play their own preferences or conceptions of the fiction.




Maybe the OP misunderstood the adventure; maybe not. I don't get the feeling the OP was invested in the setting in the way "setting solitaire play" implies.

As to the GM sticking to an image formed in his mind ... isn't that a big part of what the GM is supposed to do, at least in a game like D&D? Isn't the DM supposed to have the scene in his mind and convey that to the players? Isn't the DM supposed to have the NPCs in his head and convey those to the players, and have them react to the PCs according to their natures (shaped by whatever mechanics come into play)? If the players don't understand something, that's on the DM, sure, but I don't see why trying to have the world behave at least plausibly is going to interfere with the players playing their characters, following and eventually achieving their goals.



pemerton said:


> That's why I've said that it was the GM, not the players, who resorted to violence. And why I think the idea that the players should have just had their PCs surrender is unrealistic. In practice, surrendering is thorwing themselvs on the mercy of the GM. Where do they get the information about what the result of that will be? How are they meant to know what the GM thinks is a "realistic" consequence of surrendering as opposed to fighting?




I'm not sure having a character behave according to his nature can fairly be described as "resorting to violence."

Yes, getting players to surrender is hard. The player who attacked the ruler when he called for the guards at least wasn't behaving unreasonably, and it sounds as though there were some interesting and tense moments as the other two players talked their way out of the ruler's chambers. And the king's guards didn't kill anyone in that moment--that wouldn't have been an execution. There were two players looking at execution, and two that weren't.

I guess it seems to me as though you're willing to throw the GM under the bus, here, while I figure the players (or at least one specific player) to be more the problem, in this specific instance; and that the problem is probably more among the players than between the players and the GM.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> Suppose negotiations commence on the understanding (eg) that the PCs might buy a widget from a NPC. Then in the course of the negotiations it comes to light that the NPC acquired the widget by steatling it from one of the PC's uncles. Is the player of that PC obliged to keep up the negotiation?
> 
> As I said, approaches might differ. The approach that suggested in the passages I've quoted seems to make more sense if we assume that negotiations are something like puzzle or traps to be overcome. To me it makes less sense if we imagine that negotiations might contain moments of revelation or development.




You think a player who's "probably bored" is going to have that moment of revelation? Anyway, it's not about negotiation as a "puzzle" or a "trap." If the party goes into a negotiation with a goal, it's about progressing toward that goal.



pemerton said:


> Of course when declaring actions for one's PC one shouldn't be disruptive or discourteous. But that goes all ways. If the revelation has taken place, the players who want their PCs to keep negotiating are making a call that has implications for another player's PC just as much as that player is making a call that has implications for their PCs.




Yes, if an NPC says something that causes one PC to want to stop negotiating, there can be tension between that player and the others, but I don't get the feeling the NPC said anything particular here to generate that sort of response.


----------



## MGibster

hawkeyefan said:


> Which also relates to the suspension of disbelief. Where is it established that the Mad Tyrant would execute anyone who insults him? In the GM's mind? As a result of reading the module? This looks like what @Manbearcat has called "GM setting solitaire play".




I think you got some pertinent facts wrong.  When the first PC told the tyrant he was crazy and unfit to lead the baron called his guards.  At that point, another PC pulled his dagger and attempted to take the baron hostage and the guards ended up taking two of the PCs into custody.  The PCs would have been executed for attempting to take the local ruler hostage not for the insult.


----------



## pemerton

iserith said:


> *Whatever the DM decides is correct within the scope of the rules*, but may or may not contribute to the group achieving the goals of play. If a DM has determined that a specific approach to a PC's goal is impossible, then that's how it is and there's no roll. What is fun to a given group and what the group thinks is an exciting, memorable story, however, will vary.



I'm still not sure who you think is disputing the bolded clause.

As I have said, I am posting some thoughts about _the basis on which a GM might make decisions about when to call for a check_. It seems obvious to me that the rules which tells us what it is that ability scores represent in the fiction, and what it is that a check is for, are relevant to that.

To elaborate, and having regard not only to CHA (which I've already posted about) but to STR (which, says p 59 of the Basic PDF, "measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical forcce, consider @Maxperson's example of the 3 mile wide canyon. In declaring that no check is possible, the GM is deciding that - in the fiction - the character lacks the bodily power and/or athletic training to make such a jump. This will not be controversial if the player's character resembles Aragorn; it will be controversial if the player's character resembles The Hulk; and depending on context) it might be controversial if the PC resembles some heroic or semi-divine character such as Beowulf or Hercules.

Suppose that rather than 3 miles wide the canyon is 20' wide. The GM deciding that - in the fiction - a character who resembles Aragorn in bodily power and/or athletic training automatically fails an attempt to jump that canyon would (I think) be controversial. Doubly so if the GM made that decision based primarily not on a consideration of what might be feasible in the fiction, but a consideration of what s/he would like to happen in the fiction (eg the canyon is intended as a barrier to constrain the geographic extent of the scene being resolved).

When it comes to CHA, and social interaction, parallel considerations apply. Is the GM being true to the fiction in having the tyrant be unflabble by opposition? Or is s/he deeming, in effect, that the PCs lack the sort of capacity to exercise influence that one might expect in fantasy heroes? Or even, is s/he just deciding - by fiat - how this particular bit of the fiction is to unfold, without regard to what the players want for their PCs?

The rules may not tell us what is the best approach here, but that doesn't mean it's pointless to talk about better and worse approaches. And as I've posted upthread, the Basic PDF even sets out some relevant principles - in particular, the _plural _contributions to the shared fiction and the goal of a _memorable and exciting story_. GM fiat that is grounded in desires for outcomes rather than fidelity to the fiction seems to contradict at least the first of those principels.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> If they didn't know, then how did you the GM know they were impossible?



Different areas of knowledge.  The DM having more knowledge of the situation.  The DM knowing the NPCs better than the players.  Other reasons.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> that DM was clearly a bad DM. I don't get the feeling the OP is.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I guess it seems to me as though you're willing to throw the GM under the bus, here



I don't think the GM is a bad one. I do think that the OP started a thread to talk about something that s/he felt went wrong, or at least less well than it might have done, in a session. That's what I'm responding to.



prabe said:


> I don't know what the intent of the PCs who were negotiating was. The OP says it was going pretty well--which implies progress was happening, at least in some direction



It would be interesting to know more about what this looked like, and how it was being conveyed to the players. And to what extent is was in the mind of the GM.



prabe said:


> As to the GM sticking to an image formed in his mind ... isn't that a big part of what the GM is supposed to do, at least in a game like D&D? Isn't the DM supposed to have the scene in his mind and convey that to the players? Isn't the DM supposed to have the NPCs in his head and convey those to the players, and have them react to the PCs according to their natures (shaped by whatever mechanics come into play)?



I guess that's one view. It's not really my view.

The GM's job is to frame scenes - what page 3 of the Basic PDF calls "describ[ing] the environment" and "presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves". That involves establishing a shared fiction: the GM obviously takes the lead in framing, but nothing suggests that his/her _mental image_ of the situation is primary. It is a _shared _fiction. Certainly nothing suggests that the GM's mental image is more important than, or should operate as a constraint upon, the shared fiction.

Of course there can be problems, and how these are handled is a matter of GM dexterity and table expectations. If the GM describes the spiders in the room and s/he has in mind Mirkwood-type rat-and-pony-sized spiders while the players are envisagig daddy longlegs - something which will probably come out pretty quickly - there is going to be a need to get everyone onto the same page. Maybe the GM yields to the players; more likely in that sort of scenario I would guess that the GM clarifies the description and the players re-declare their actions.

But if the GM's mental image of the NPC is that s/he is unable to be cowed, while all the players know is that (i) the NPC is mad and angry, and (ii) the NPC seems no stronger than any one of their PCs, then why would they expect that the NPC can't be cowed? Where does that come from? From my own play experience, my reading of modules and my reading of threads I believe there is a tendency for GM's to treat ideas and images _that only they have access to _as constraints on the shared fiction. Or to go back to your language of "suspending disbelief", there is a tendency for GMs to treat as part of the established fiction, and hence part of the constraint on their own suspension of disbelief, stuff that _has not emerged in play_,_ is not part of the shared fiction_, and _will not necessarily be uncontroversial when revealed to the players_.

I personally don't see it as part of the GM's job to convey NPCs to the players in that particular fashion.

And apropos of this:



Maxperson said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they didn't know, then how did you the GM know they were impossible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Different areas of knowledge.  The DM having more knowledge of the situation.  The DM knowing the NPCs better than the players.  Other reasons.
Click to expand...


_The GM knowing the NPC better than the players _is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about: the GM applying his/her mental conception, which is not part of the shared fiction, as a constraint on that fiction.

You can't get this particular approach to GMing, and to resolution, out of the far more basic proposition that the GM is responsible for framing scenes. Or even that the GM is responsible for ensuring that the fiction remains consistent and "realistic".


----------



## pemerton

Here's how a different RPG might resolve the confrontation between PC and mad tyrant, at the point where the former insults the latter:

Make opposed checks (on Presence, Charisma, Will - whatever is the appropriate attribute in the system). Maybe the tyrant gets a buff for being confident in his domain. Maybe the PC gets a buff for beig resolute in his/her righteousness and being in the company of more than one strong friend.

If the player's roll beats the GM's roll, the tyrant yields. Perhaps the degree of failure determines the degree of yielding - from nervously laughing it off to outright capitulation.

If the GM beats the player's roll, the tyrant doesn't yield. Maybe on a narrow success the tyrant simply laughts off the insult, while on a very large success he demands the PC's head as payment.

Systems that work like this include Prince Valiant, HeroWars/Quest, and Burning Wheel (though rather than opposed checks it uses the tyrant's will score to set a static DC).  As well as simple opposed checks these systems all include an option for complex resolution (eg Duel of Wits in BW) to allows for resolution of a more extended debate.

It's also possible to have social resolution in the form of players-roll-all-the-dice: Apocalypse World and Dungeon World have this (simple resolution) and so does 4e D&D (mostly complex resolution via the skill challenge frameworl).

A 5e referee is working in the 5e framework. S/he isn't bound by, or even expected to be familiar with, these other systems. But these systems have come about for a reason: they offer various responses to a recurrent area of difficulty in RPGing. The 5e GM might therefore want at least to be aware that there can be recurrent areas of difficulty, and that there are ways of handling them other than simply fiat extrapolation from the GM's unrevealed "knowledge" of the NPC.


----------



## Nagol

Lanefan said:


> If I-as-DM have any NPC adventurers (i.e. full party members, not just henches) in the party they'll have a say just like anyone else, but will usually in the end do what they're told.
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> How can this happen?  Players can't force another player to sign over a PC to the DM as an NPC.




It's happened a few times where the group effectively "fires" a PC.  "Thanks for your efforts, but we feel your tactics/priorities are incompatible with the  group.  Now that we are back in civilization, here is your balance owing.  We hope you have success with your future endeavours."

If I am unwilling to run a side campaign then the player has two choices: create a PC the other players will cooperate with or leave the campaign,  Either way, the PC is now a NPC.  If the group has fractured into large factions that refuse to cooperate, I instead give the player-group a choice: fix it  (through retirement or healing the divide, I don't care which) or end the campaign.



> They can boot the PC from the party, but by no means does that make it an NPC: a PC always belongs to its player unless that player declares otherwise, right?
> 
> <snip>




A retired PC is still part of the world and continues to exist.  All characters not controlled by a player are NPC.  Unless the PC dies, (and sometimes even then), a retired PC is a NPC.  The original player gets no more say in their future action than any other player would.  That said, in most cases, the new NPC "wanders off" to be heard from no more.  Occasionally, the NPC has privileged abilities, knowledge, or resources the other PCs still require and so the NPC is around.


----------



## Lanefan

prabe said:


> And if they don't, the people who are doing the negotiation will--legitimately--be irritated at least, and probably frustrated. If they felt they were making any headway in the negotiation, they might legitimately be angry.



As would their PCs, which is perfectly fine; and they're free to react in character in whatever way those characters might react.


> This is probably something the players/party members should sort out, ideally before starting the negotiation.



Maybe.


> If you (the player) agree to have your character there, you are implicitly agreeing to let that scene play out.



Maybe.  I'm agreeing to have my character there.  I'll take the scene as it comes.


> If there's something else you want to do, split the party.



Not so easy to do when what I want to do is in the same location and time as the other PCs.


> You'll have to sit through the other PCs negotiating, but you'll have your opportunity to do whatever it is you'd prefer.



Which defeats the whole point, if I as both player and character don't want to sit through it and would rather stir the pot a little.


----------



## Lanefan

Fanaelialae said:


> It's less about self-censoring and more about not sabotaging the agreed upon plan. If there is a need to alter course, the players can have a quick side bar to discuss.
> 
> We agree to it in advance. Hence, if someone thinks a negotiation won't be fun, they have an opportunity to express that. It's a group decision and they are part of that decision.



No.

They were part of that decision at the time it was made - assuming that such agreement was in truth - but that doesn't necessarily bind a character who's not known for keeping his-her word or has a history of taking unilateral and-or unpredictable actions.

Unilateral action is always in play, and no matter how much you might hope it doesn't happen there's going to be times that it will.



> Just tonight, we staged an ambush for someone we thought was a murderer. But when he arrived, he behaved unexpectedly and we, through pantomiming, agreed that someone should approach him and talk to him. As my character is the least threatening, I was elected. So I had a 10 minute conversation while the other players watched. Once I was satisfied that an ambush wasn't necessary, I waved them out to join. I've similarly waited patiently while other players have done scenes that I wasn't a part of.



That's all cool, but if someone decided to attack the guy anyway then so be it: the guy gets attacked.  You talker-types are just the distraction. 



> I don't think it's boring at all



As a player, often it isn't...but sometimes a character's boredom threshold can be considerably less than its player's.


> and moreover it's simply good table manners IMO. Players shouldn't typically make unilateral decisions that impact the entire group.



Here it's largely just par for the course.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> So why did the player declare them, if they knew they were impossible?



Because the player could.

There's nothing ever stopping a player from declaring an impossible action should said player so desire.  

But a so-called action declaration is only ever in fact a declaration of attempt.  There's many things - including the whole impossibility bit - preventing that action from succeeding.


----------



## Lanefan

Nagol said:


> It's happened a few times where the group effectively "fires" a PC.  "Thanks for your efforts, but we feel your tactics/priorities are incompatible with the  group.  Now that we are back in civilization, here is your balance owing.  We hope you have success with your future endeavours."



All cool here!



> If I am unwilling to run a side campaign then the player has two choices: create a PC the other players will cooperate with or leave the campaign



Still cool to here!



> Either way, the PC is now a NPC.



No.  Not cool at all.

Even if the PC is no longer part of an adventuring party it still 100% belongs to its player, and IMO you need that player's permission to do anythng with it. Also, at some point if that player so desires, that PC could be brought out of retirement and back into a probably-different active party (I've done this many times both as player and DM).



> If the group has fractured into large factions that refuse to cooperate, I instead give the player-group a choice: fix it  (through retirement or healing the divide, I don't care which) or end the campaign.



Also not cool, but this is more a question of DM style.  I'm very much a let-'em-fight DM, and if the party fractures into discordant groups I'll gladly run both if I can, either on different nights of the week or alternately week-to-week or whatever.



> A retired PC is still part of the world and continues to exist.



Cool!



> All characters not controlled by a player are NPC.



But a PC is always owned (and thus controlled) by its player, so here we divide.



> Unless the PC dies, (and sometimes even then), a retired PC is a NPC.



Were I a player in your game you'd be able to hear my arguments from Mars on this one.

My retired PC is still my PC.  Period.  No debate.  End of story.

You-as-DM can't do anything with it without my say-so, and though most of the time that likely won't be a problem I still expect to a) know in advance if you're doing something with it and b) have a binding right to either have input into it if it makes sense for the character or outright veto it if it's not something the character would do.



> Occasionally, the NPC has privileged abilities, knowledge, or resources the other PCs still require and so the NPC is around.



Having a retired PC around just to ask questions of or gain info from isn't a problem, as usually you-as-DM would know whether said PC would willingly give the info or not.

But what happens if, say, the party boot my PC out and I leave the game, then six months later come back and try to recruit my old PC because they need its skill set in the party?  If as you posit it's now an NPC it becomes your decision alone whether it rejoins, where for me not only is it my decision whether my PC rejoins but if it does that means I-as-player am also back in the game.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Lanefan said:


> No.
> 
> They were part of that decision at the time it was made - assuming that such agreement was in truth - but that doesn't necessarily bind a character who's not known for keeping his-her word or has a history of taking unilateral and-or unpredictable actions.
> 
> Unilateral action is always in play, and no matter how much you might hope it doesn't happen there's going to be times that it will.
> 
> That's all cool, but if someone decided to attack the guy anyway then so be it: the guy gets attacked.  You talker-types are just the distraction.
> 
> As a player, often it isn't...but sometimes a character's boredom threshold can be considerably less than its player's.
> Here it's largely just par for the course.



Yeah, we generally don't run the types of characters that can't be trusted by the party, as it puts a serious strain on the credulity of why the characters are even tolerating this person in their group. Obviously, it's simply because that character is a PC, but that's based entirely on meta information, not on what the PCs would actually do. So we don't really do that these days. The PC can be untrustworthy towards people outside a party, but they don't violate the party's trust.

That's not to say that a player can't play a loose cannon. But there will be a quick side bar between the players to discuss the action, if there are objections, and if it's decided that the talking players are still negotiating, then the hothead might start to lunge forward but one of the other PCs catches the hothead's eye and they stop themselves for the time being. Other times the players might agree that the negotiation is going nowhere and let the hothead do his thing. Some of the characters might be displeased with the hothead's actions but the players are on board, and that's what's important. The character behaves like a hothead but the player respects the wishes of the group. As I see it, it's simply a matter of being respectful of the enjoyment of everyone else at the table.

It's fine if your way works for you at your table (I'm not looking to suggest otherwise). However, we've found that doing it our way results in far greater fun for everyone at the table.


----------



## Nagol

Lanefan said:


> All cool here!
> 
> Still cool to here!
> 
> No.  Not cool at all.
> 
> Even if the PC is no longer part of an adventuring party it still 100% belongs to its player, and IMO you need that player's permission to do anythng with it. Also, at some point if that player so desires, that PC could be brought out of retirement and back into a probably-different active party (I've done this many times both as player and DM).
> 
> Also not cool, but this is more a question of DM style.  I'm very much a let-'em-fight DM, and if the party fractures into discordant groups I'll gladly run both if I can, either on different nights of the week or alternately week-to-week or whatever.
> 
> Cool!
> 
> But a PC is always owned (and thus controlled) by its player, so here we divide.
> 
> Were I a player in your game you'd be able to hear my arguments from Mars on this one.
> 
> My retired PC is still my PC.  Period.  No debate.  End of story.
> 
> You-as-DM can't do anything with it without my say-so, and though most of the time that likely won't be a problem I still expect to a) know in advance if you're doing something with it and b) have a binding right to either have input into it if it makes sense for the character or outright veto it if it's not something the character would do.
> 
> Having a retired PC around just to ask questions of or gain info from isn't a problem, as usually you-as-DM would know whether said PC would willingly give the info or not.
> 
> But what happens if, say, the party boot my PC out and I leave the game, then six months later come back and try to recruit my old PC because they need its skill set in the party?  If as you posit it's now an NPC it becomes your decision alone whether it rejoins, where for me not only is it my decision whether my PC rejoins but if it does that means I-as-player am also back in the game.




The PC is part of the shared world.  The PC is being retired by the player.  Therefore someone else (namely the DM) needs to operate the character.  Can the player decide to reprise his ownership?  Maybe, depending on the reason for retirement.  Can the player use the PC in a different campaign?  Sure!  But the currently operating campaign exists with that character in it.  The world is not altered by the player taking a different PC.

I as DM control the freaking universe outside the purview of the PC(s) directly under the players' control.  If you retire your control over a PC voluntarily or involuntarily, that character now belongs to me.  Most of the time there won't be conflict because I have no vested interest in controlling one particular NPC over another and in fact have a minor vested interest in reducing the spotlight on a former PC.  Sometimes, crap happens though and a particular NPC is best suited to a situation.  If that happens to be a former PC, OK.  I'll try to portray the character sensibly and within its established history and characterization as I would any other character.  The former player may or may not be invited to provide input as I deem appropriate.  The NPC may or may not be eligible to be promoted back to PC status depending on their new role in the campaign.

If the players come back a few months later to recruit a former PC, assuming it is available and still appropriate for PC status, the player will be faced with a choice: which PC does the player wish to control?  The new PC or the old PC.  Pick one.  The other is a NPC.


----------



## prabe

Lanefan said:


> Which defeats the whole point, if I as both player and character don't want to sit through it and would rather stir the pot a little.




I think it's easier for you, because your group has been together for decades with slow turnover, IIRC. I'm GMing one table that's been together for about two years and another that's been together for like nine months. I'm not sure either group know each other well enough to play the way you describe.

It's also plausible-shading-to-probable that I'm both more easily bothered by having my own fun stepped on and more careful not to step on the fun of others. Which (really!) isn't a negative judgment.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> Here's how a different RPG might resolve the confrontation between PC and mad tyrant, at the point where the former insults the latter:
> 
> Make opposed checks (on Presence, Charisma, Will - whatever is the appropriate attribute in the system). Maybe the tyrant gets a buff for being confident in his domain. Maybe the PC gets a buff for beig resolute in his/her righteousness and being in the company of more than one strong friend.
> 
> If the player's roll beats the GM's roll, the tyrant yields. Perhaps the degree of failure determines the degree of yielding - from nervously laughing it off to outright capitulation.
> 
> If the GM beats the player's roll, the tyrant doesn't yield. Maybe on a narrow success the tyrant simply laughts off the insult, while on a very large success he demands the PC's head as payment.
> 
> Systems that work like this include Prince Valiant, HeroWars/Quest, and Burning Wheel (though rather than opposed checks it uses the tyrant's will score to set a static DC).  As well as simple opposed checks these systems all include an option for complex resolution (eg Duel of Wits in BW) to allows for resolution of a more extended debate.
> 
> It's also possible to have social resolution in the form of players-roll-all-the-dice: Apocalypse World and Dungeon World have this (simple resolution) and so does 4e D&D (mostly complex resolution via the skill challenge frameworl).
> 
> A 5e referee is working in the 5e framework. S/he isn't bound by, or even expected to be familiar with, these other systems. But these systems have come about for a reason: they offer various responses to a recurrent area of difficulty in RPGing. The 5e GM might therefore want at least to be aware that there can be recurrent areas of difficulty, and that there are ways of handling them other than simply fiat extrapolation from the GM's unrevealed "knowledge" of the NPC.




So, yes, there are roughly as many ways to handle this as there are systems in which to handle it. It seems plausible to me that any resolution system could land on the OP's outcome, the same way the application of 5E's did. What then?

Also, what does "yield" mean for an insulted tyrant? Specifically, an insult questioning his fitness to rule? From the OP, it sounds to me as though he did yield in part, allowing the PCs who didn't attack him to leave in peace. There's been a lot of ... presumption, I think, that the whole outcome was GM Fiat, and I don't believe that to be the case (other than deciding what the tyrant wouldn't give up, which seems like the GM doing the "playing the NPC" part of the job).


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> It would be interesting to know more about what this looked like, and how it was being conveyed to the players. And to what extent is was in the mind of the GM.




And (calling back to what others have said about the published adventure) to what extent the PCs knew going in that he was a villain (which I'm taking to mean someone the PCs are expected by the writer/s to at least want to take down). Defeating a villain by talking with him is ... atypical for D&D (though not strictly impossible).




pemerton said:


> The GM's job is to frame scenes - what page 3 of the Basic PDF calls "describ[ing] the environment" and "presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves". That involves establishing a shared fiction: the GM obviously takes the lead in framing, but nothing suggests that his/her _mental image_ of the situation is primary. It is a _shared _fiction. Certainly nothing suggests that the GM's mental image is more important than, or should operate as a constraint upon, the shared fiction.




Since the DM in 5E has specific authority to determine when an outcome is in doubt, I'd say the DM's mental image serves as a pretty firm constraint on the shared fiction. Sure, there are other systems where the GM has less authority in that regard, but the OP isn't playing any of those (I don't think) so I'm not sure they're super-relevant..




pemerton said:


> But if the GM's mental image of the NPC is that s/he is unable to be cowed, while all the players know is that (i) the NPC is mad and angry, and (ii) the NPC seems no stronger than any one of their PCs, then why would they expect that the NPC can't be cowed? Where does that come from? From my own play experience, my reading of modules and my reading of threads I believe there is a tendency for GM's to treat ideas and images _that only they have access to _as constraints on the shared fiction. Or to go back to your language of "suspending disbelief", there is a tendency for GMs to treat as part of the established fiction, and hence part of the constraint on their own suspension of disbelief, stuff that _has not emerged in play_,_ is not part of the shared fiction_, and _will not necessarily be uncontroversial when revealed to the players_.




So, responding to things here, not in the order you pose them.

I guess I need an example of what you mean in the italicized phrases. The world of the game is more than what the players or characters know. I know my homebrew setting has secrets the players don't know about--far as I know, they don't even know the questions; some of those might at some point effect play, and I suppose it's possible a player might object to [newly-established fact that hasn't been contradicted in play]--is that the sort of thing you mean?

Not all the GM's playtime happens at the table. I'd argue that if the GM is doing prep work, that's a form of play, and anything the GM has prepped has emerged in play. Reading a published adventure before running it is a form of prep--and any descriptions therein I'd be inclined to consider pretty well-fixed, in the sense that I consider fiction to have both objective (what happens) and subjective (what the characters experience) levels. If the GM in the process of making the game-world decides that the world itself is gradually awakening to consciousness, that seems like a fact of the world--and it might serve as a constraint on (or instigator of) what happens in a campaign, even if the players or characters never know it (and for all I know the players might find it aesthetically repugnant).

As to a specific NPC and that NPC's reactions ... If the GM has prepped that NPC as having certain attitudes or certain likely behaviors, it seems to me as though that's probably where the NPC starts and what the NPC probably does. If the NPC has (in Fate-speak) Aspect-like characteristics (Trait, Bond, Flaw in 5E), those are on the NPC's character sheet--they're part of the character, which has a sort of objective existence in the setting. Maybe it's possible for the PCs to find out about those characteristics--either through experiencing the setting or through a social encounter with the NPC (Fate has a mechanic to learn an NPC's aspects; I think 5E allows WIS(Insight) to learn Traits/Bonds/Flaws). If they don't learn about them, though, they still exist, and they'll still shape the NPC's behavior.

When I talk about "suspension of disbelief" (or specifically when I mentioned things happening to break mine, as a GM), I was talking about having the world not be consistent. Part of the reason I strongly prefer to run games where the players/PCs don't have authority to (re-)write the world is because I find that having so many authorial viewpoints leads to an inconsistent world (and to my suspension of disbelief collapsing). It's not a radically different experience from reading a novel where the world is inconsistent. Or writing such a novel: my experience from when I was trying to write fiction was that if I couldn't suspend disbelief in the story I was writing, I couldn't write it, and I think my feelings about GMing in this regard are consistent with (and probably shaped by) that.




pemerton said:


> _The GM knowing the NPC better than the players _is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about: the GM applying his/her mental conception, which is not part of the shared fiction, as a constraint on that fiction.
> 
> You can't get this particular approach to GMing, and to resolution, out of the far more basic proposition that the GM is responsible for framing scenes. Or even that the GM is responsible for ensuring that the fiction remains consistent and "realistic".




If the GM has the NPC's character sheet (or statblock, or whatever the game calls it) it seems to me that the GM self-evidently does know the NPC better than the players. There are of course game systems that let the players edit NPCs' character sheets (or other parts of the world), but what they don't edit the GM still knows--and if the players don't find that out somehow, they don't know it.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> So, yes, there are roughly as many ways to handle this as there are systems in which to handle it. It seems plausible to me that any resolution system could land on the OP's outcome, the same way the application of 5E's did. What then?
> 
> Also, what does "yield" mean for an insulted tyrant? Specifically, an insult questioning his fitness to rule? From the OP, it sounds to me as though he did yield in part, allowing the PCs who didn't attack him to leave in peace. There's been a lot of ... presumption, I think, that the whole outcome was GM Fiat, and I don't believe that to be the case (other than deciding what the tyrant wouldn't give up, which seems like the GM doing the "playing the NPC" part of the job).




Not trying to answer for @pemerton...I’m curious to hear his response. But I think this is a good question.

I don’t think that the situation in the OP was arrived at purely by GM fiat. I do think mechanics were deployed at times and that those helped shape the results. But it’s not entirely clear what mechanics, when, how often, and what results. 

I also think that there were likely many points that were decided by GM fiat of some kind. And possibly some lack of clarity about possible consequences. It’s hard to say.

For instance, when the one PC insults the burgomaster and the burgomaster responds by calling “Guards!”, was any kind of check used? Did they DM simply decide “okay he’s not gonna tolerate that, he’s gonna call for his guards”. Additionally, when the burgomaster yelled “Guards!” did the DM offer any additional information to the players? Was it “Guards! Escort these ruffians from my hall”? Or was it “Guards! Kill these outlanders!”?

If it’s a case of no mechanics being deployed to determine the Burgomaster’s reaction, and then either an unclear threat (“Guards!” without any further cues) or an overt threat (“Guards, kill them!”) then I think that the DM has largely created the resulting situation by fiat. He decided how the BM reacted, he indicated a threat to the PCs, they responded. 

Now, if that is the case, I don’t think that’s really a problem in and of itself. I’m sure many tables would consider all this well within expectations. But if this end result is dissatisfying in some way to the participants, which seems to be the case, then we need to look at the points where things may have gone differently. 

So what if the one PCs insult was attached to an Intimidation check? The DM could set the DC for that and then call for a roll. On a success, maybe the BM doesn’t just start calling for the guards. Maybe he gets angry....but realizes these are capable outsiders, and perhaps he should try and keep a cool head. Maybe the insult actually gives a bonus to the other PCs’ attempts at negotiation. Maybe the DC is lower for their next check, or they gain Advantage on the roll. 

On this way, maybe the bored PC feels he’s contributed in a meaningful way, and is a little less bored as a result. This seems to be one way to handle things that hasn’t even been considered in the discussion. A positive result to the insult. 

Let’s say the Intimidation check fails. Maybe the burgomaster raises an eyebrow at the PC. Maybe some guards enter the room or advance in some other way...but the BM raises a hand for them to stop. “Mind your tongue, outlander, or I’ll have my men rip it out.”

This becomes a clear indication that things are about to escalate. It’s not vague. The PC can now press his approach and face the consequences, or he can back down and let the negotiations continue, or try some other approach. Alternatively, or additionally, maybe the insult makes the negotiation harder; the DC goes up or they get disadvantage on the next check.  

I think very often the GM can get very attached to an idea of the “way things are”, and can become resistant to allowing change. I know this used to be true for me, especially with certain “darling” NPCs of mine. I’d be very reluctant to allow any input other than my own to affect them. Now, I don’t think the Burgomaster of Vallaki is anyone’s darling NPC. I think he exists as a foil to the PCs, but not an incredibly meaningful one. Allowing the PCs to influence him seems well within what we should expect from the game. He’s certainly not meant to be some insurmountable obstacle. By contrast, Count Strahd would be a NPC that I’d consider far more difficult to sway in such a way. 

I mean, isn’t the whole point of playing to see how the PCs impact the world and how they are impacted by it? So I thibk it’s a good idea to either allow game mechanics for a chance at that, or to take it strongly into consideration when deciding anything by fiat.


----------



## iserith

pemerton said:


> When it comes to CHA, and social interaction, parallel considerations apply. Is the GM being true to the fiction in having the tyrant be unflabble by opposition? Or is s/he deeming, in effect, that the PCs lack the sort of capacity to exercise influence that one might expect in fantasy heroes? Or even, is s/he just deciding - by fiat - how this particular bit of the fiction is to unfold, without regard to what the players want for their PCs?
> 
> The rules may not tell us what is the best approach here, but that doesn't mean it's pointless to talk about better and worse approaches. And as I've posted upthread, the Basic PDF even sets out some relevant principles - in particular, the _plural _contributions to the shared fiction and the goal of a _memorable and exciting story_. GM fiat that is grounded in desires for outcomes rather than fidelity to the fiction seems to contradict at least the first of those principels.




I don't see any contradictions. The DM decides if there's a check by way of two criteria. If he or she decides there's a check because the PCs are trying to influence an NPC, then it's a Charisma check. All choices made by the DM and players are judged against the goals of play. But each group's idea of fun, exciting, and memorable vary at least somewhat. The principles you keep alluding to don't really say one way or another how the DM should specifically rule in this circumstance. You, as DM, might really believe that a Charisma check would have turned this whole thing around. Other DMs might think otherwise, given the context.

Aragorn in your example fails to jump the distance by the way, no roll, if his Strength is less than 20. If some special circumstance were present, he might get a check to jump an unusually long distance.


----------



## pemerton

@prabe, @hawkeyefan

On the issue of mechanics and "yielding" in this particular context I don't know that I have all that much more to add.

The claim that "any resolution system could land on the OP's outcome, the same way the application of 5E's did" seems false to me. Prince Valiant won't, because one feature of its system for establishing consequences is that PC death should rarely be in issue. So executions are off the table. In my Prince Valiant game, when the PCs found themselves at odds with an evil and treacherous NPC, the NPC called for a joust to prove his innocence. He won, and hence the PCs rode on, later to hear news that the older brother of the NPC in question had mysterioulsy died, leaving the NPC the undisputed ruler of Fort Seahawk.

In Burning Wheel the stakes should generally be made explicit if they are not already implicit. In our game, when the PCs acccused the evil cleric in the Keep on the Borderlands of being such, the result was a duel of honour which (again) the PC (played by the same player) lost. In a scenario closer to the OP's one, the introduction of the guards, and the consequences thereof, would be handled very differently from what is described - BW invites and requires the GM to be far more thoughtful about framing than seems to have been the case in the OP.

In the 5e context I would think some of these ideas could equally be applied - hawkeyefan has sketched out a good range of possibilities already, both just upthread and earlier in the thread also.


----------



## prabe

@pemerton 

Yes, @hawkeyefan described several ways the scene could have been handled differently. I believe he has some experience with the adventure in question, so his points are well worth considering in this specific instance. I think some of them are looking to solve what's clearly an out-of-game problem (different preferences/expectations for play) in-game, which I think is ... not the best approach, but if you're determined not to break the fourth wall here they'll serve--though I think there's still a discussion necessary, after the scene or after the session. I think his points about DM Fiat mattering less than people having fun, and the sorts of considerations that should come into play before deploying DM Fiat in this instance are important and valid.

I disagree about the situation being impossible in other resolution systems, though. I'll grant that it would probably violate the expectations of play that in Prince Valiant the PCs should be arrested and in a prison with their executions scheduled for the next day, but that doesn't in itself seem contradictory to your description of its approach to PC death--the expectation I'd think would be that there'd be a way to arrange their escape. It doesn't seem out of the mechanics' range, but I'll grant that you know the system approximately infinitely better than I do. I don't know Burning Wheel any better than Prince Valiant, but again it seems plausible (not likely--plausible) that the mechanics could lead to a situation not radically different from this, with the GM being thoughtful about the NPC and about framing, and with the stakes being explicit. I figure there are different paths to roughly the same place.

As to "yielding" and the effects of checks on the NPC: Those in this thread who know the adventure have described the tyrant in question as weak. It seems to me that a weak despot would be more likely to react poorly to being insulted, more likely to resort to executions and other strong-arm tactics than a strong one, and that those in fact might be his failure states (he loses his composure) rather than his success states. Of course, it's possible that my tendency to think backward is leading me astray here--and of course, he may be written differently in the adventure.


----------



## pemerton

iserith said:


> Aragorn in your example fails to jump the distance by the way, no roll, if his Strength is less than 20. If some special circumstance were present, he might get a check to jump an unusually long distance.



The search function is not turning up the thread for me, but some time in 2018 (I think it was) there was an extensive thread about this very issue in which I believe you participated. Your reading of those rules is not the only one. In particular, some people - including regular 5e players - think that the reference under the Athletics skill entry (Basic PDF p 59) to "try[ing] to jump an unusually long distance" establishes a framework within which attempts to jump further than a PC's STR score might be resolved; and that the statement under the Movement heading (Basic PDF p 64) that "Your Strength determines how far you can jump" should be taken to be qualified with an adverb such as "usually" or "with certainty".


----------



## Campbell

@prabe @billd91 @Fanaelialae

I personally find that level of group coordination extraordinary. I do not think it should be taken as a given.

For my part a good deal of how I learned to run games is focused on getting players to play their characters as individuals. If a character is present on the scene during a social interaction I would expect that they would be actively involved in the negotiations. If they were not NPCs would bring that up. I might also ask them questions about how they see things.

Now if they are like not in the scene because they are doing other things or are on the other side of the room that's one thing. If they interrupt when I am specifically addressing someone else that's another. If your character is physically present you are in the scene.

Of course at the end of the day a lot of this confusion comes from the lack of instruction provided to players and GMs by the game. There is no meaningful sense of where your priorities ought to be so unless that is resolved by group explicitly you are apt to run into mismatched play priorities.


----------



## prabe

I can't (and won't try to) speak for the other two, but I'd find the behavior of the player whose character insulted the tyrant *while I was negotiating with him* to be literally infuriating. You're not only keeping my character from achieving the goal of the negotiation now, you're keeping my character from *ever* achieving that goal with this NPC. It has vibes of PvP to me--and I utterly detest PvP.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> I disagree about the situation being impossible in other resolution systems



Besides my own experience, there is the experience of others. Who has had the sort of thing described in the OP happen in Prince Valiant, or Burning Wheel, or Dungeon World? That is - to be clear about _the sort of thing described _- who has had a session result in a player apologising for "ruining the campaign" because a confrontation between PCs and a ruler led to PCs being escorted out by guards to be executed with the GM seeing no way out but either "reward[ing] murder-hoboism and let[ting] them escape with a deus ex machina?

I'm spelling this out to make it clear that - as I read it - the problem in the OP is not _the fiction_. RPGing can support an incredibly varied range of fictions, including imprisonment and escape. (It happens quite often in my games, including the last session I ran - a Wuthering Heights one-off.) The problem - as best I can tell - was _the process whereby the fiction was produced_., this process including both framing and resolution.

In my BW campaign two PCs ended up imprisoned after a confrontation with city guards while leaving the scene of a murder carrying a severed head and some vessels filled with the victim's blood. But this did not ruin the campaign. And the game was ble to continue without rewarding "murder-hoboism" and without "deus ex machina". This is because BW has robust systems and frameworks, on both GM and player side, for resolving a whole host of action declarations - not only the ones which were attempted (and failed) to placate the guards, but such ones as "I wait to see if anyone visits me in prison" (Circles check) - and for establishing the framing of scenes (eg the design and play of BW pracically guarantees that there will be some sort of nemesis who wants to come and gloat over the imprisoned PC, or some sort of ally who will want to come and help him/her escape).

In the OP we are told that "they were given several opportunities to escape the stocks, but the would-be assassin failed and the instigator said he would rather die than let this corrupt man stay in power." @hawkeyefan, having knowledge of the module, may be able to conjecture what those opportunities were likely to have been. I infer - from the players' responses, and treating those as sincere - that these opportunities involved some sort of compromise with or concession to the tyrant. More generally, and in line with the reference to deus ex machina, it seems like the only way out of the failed attempt to defy and/or kill the mad tyrant was to follow the GM's lead.

This problem is not going to arise in systems which encourage the GM to follow the players' lead.



prabe said:


> I'll grant that it would probably violate the expectations of play that in Prince Valiant the PCs should be arrested and in a prison with their executions scheduled for the next day, but that doesn't in itself seem contradictory to your description of its approach to PC death--the expectation I'd think would be that there'd be a way to arrange their escape.



The language of "arrangement" to me resonates strongly with "giving opportunities" and "deus ex machina".

Prince Valiant has a different mechanical framework from BW, but one option for a player in possession of a Storyteller Certificate is to Find and Escape Route or Escape Bonds. From p 45 of my imprint:



Spoiler



*FIND ESCAPE ROUTE*
Whether locked in the dank donjon prison, upstairs in a chamber inside a burning castle, or in the hold of a sinking ship with the hatches battened, this Special Effect will allow one character to find a way out. In the donjon he might discover that the wretch who brings slop owes him a favor; in the castle a hidden passage behind curtains might be found; among the dunes a deep wadi might conceal a rapid escape; a section of rotten planking might provide escape from a ship.

*ESCAPE BONDS*
Whenever immobilized with rope, chains, manacles, or other devices, a character can escape with this Special Effect. Maybe a rat comes and chews the bloody thongs, as happens to Val in one dramatic sequence, or a jagged edge of stone lies nearby, or a tool is smuggled in, or the lock proves to be broken.

If the escaping character has companions in adversity, he may be able to free them once free himself. But Escape Bonds does not permit a whole group of characters to miraculously free themselves at the same instant.



There are also options based around action resolution: even without a special effect a player might have his/her PC make a Fellowship check to befriend the slop-delivering wretch. Or with a Presence check have Prince Edward turn up and reveal the PC's "noble heritage" which warrrants him/her being freed. (I'm thinking of the resolution of the stocks scene in the film A Knight's Tale.)

The orientation of the system is towards player proactivity rather than dependence on following the GM's lead.



prabe said:


> As to "yielding" and the effects of checks on the NPC: Those in this thread who know the adventure have described the tyrant in question as weak. It seems to me that a weak despot would be more likely to react poorly to being insulted, more likely to resort to executions and other strong-arm tactics than a strong one



An alternative thought is that a weak despot might yield to those who are obviously stronger than him.

This goes back to my thought that sometimes "realistic" = _what the GM has in mind_.

In my experience a more flexible appoach to establishing consequences and NPC behavious not only helps avoid the problems in the OP,  it also produces more interesting, fleshed out and hence "realistic" NPCs. This came out in a discussion a couple of years ago about my Classic Traveller game, when @chaochou posted some thoughts about how a group of PCs might try and capture a military ship, including some respones to the suggestion that it was "unrealistic" for his plan to work:



chaochou said:


> If I was going to try and get aboard the cruiser it wouldn't be through violence, and probably not stealth either.
> 
> I'd be looking to broadcast a distress signal and claim to have a life support malfunction and multiple system failures - throw the ship into a slow awkward spin to make it look convincing. Something to get you on board the target ship with a credible reason to be there and as little suspicion as possible.





chaochou said:


> Actually the Captain was once in an emergency situation himself as a young boy and vividly remembers his own rescue. He may be researching bio-weapons, but he'll take a distress call seriously. There's no honour amongst thieves though, and three or four of the other senior crew lost patience the last time they went out to a distress beacon. This one could easily push them over the edge.



The remarks about the NPC captain were part of an explanation as to why a distress signal broadcast by the PCs might be picked up even though doing so would not be "rational" or "realistic" for the NPCs.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> I can't (and won't try to) speak for the other two, but I'd find the behavior of the player whose character insulted the tyrant *while I was negotiating with him* to be literally infuriating. You're not only keeping my character from achieving the goal of the negotiation now, you're keeping my character from *ever* achieving that goal with this NPC. It has vibes of PvP to me--and I utterly detest PvP.



I don't feel the force of that _ever_. A fortiori I don't feel its bolded force.

Why does PC A insulting a NPC prevent PC B from ever achiving B's goal with that NPC?

In our Cortex+ Heroic vikings game, the fact that one PC (the skinchanging trickster) failed in his atempt to sell a giant chieftain his own ox after stealing it from the barn (the chieftain recognised the ox and tried to eat the offending PC) didn't stop another PC (the level-headed warthane) from first persuading a giant shaman of the importance of his mission and with the shaman's help then persuading the chieftain himself to offer help rather than eat the PCs.

I could probably think of other actual play examples, but that's the first one that came to mind.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> Besides my own experience, there is the experience of others. Who has had the sort of thing described in the OP happen in Prince Valiant, or Burning Wheel, or Dungeon World? That is - to be clear about _the sort of thing described _- who has had a session result in a player apologising for "ruining the campaign" because a confrontation between PCs and a ruler led to PCs being escorted out by guards to be executed with the GM seeing no way out but either "reward[ing] murder-hoboism and let[ting] them escape with a deus ex machina?




I wasn't saying it was likely. I was saying it was plausible. I was kinda hoping you'd think about (and explain--thanks for doing that) how the situation could be handled *if it arose* in those other games.



pemerton said:


> The language of "arrangement" to me resonates strongly with "giving opportunities" and "deus ex machina".




I can see how you might understand it that way, but my intended meaning was that the game/fiction would allow for the characters (or the rest of the party) to arrange their escape--as you proceed to demonstrate. I'm not surprised that PbtA games have such mechanics, as well, given how they seem to be focused around complications--and being captured seems as though it could be a complication.

Prince Valiant has a different mechanical framework from BW, but one option for a player in possession of a Storyteller Certificate is to Find and Escape Route or Escape Bonds. From p 45 of my imprint:



pemerton said:


> An alternative thought is that a weak despot might yield to those who are obviously stronger than him.
> 
> This goes back to my thought that sometimes "realistic" = _what the GM has in mind_.




Well, yes, that's apparently the more common thought. I admitted that I have a tendency to think backward and end up in strange places. I've had a player tell me point-blank he didn't ever want to play in a dungeon-crawl if I ever wrote one, specifically because I think so strangely. (NARRATOR: He's playing in a dungeon-crawl that I wrote. He has described it as "nightmare-fuel.")

As to what the GM has in mind: Maybe it's how the GM prepped the character. A GM might prep the character as reacting to insults by cowering in the corner and crying for his mommy. A GM might prep the character as reacting to the insults by havng the offending characters imprisoned or exiled. A GM might prep the character in any number of ways, and could then have that character behave according to its nature, as prepped. If the PCs know about the character's nature, they can behave accordingly; it seems from the OP that they at least had the opportunity to learn about the NPC's nature, and behaved the way they did anyway.


----------



## Maxperson

iserith said:


> Aragorn in your example fails to jump the distance by the way, no roll, if his Strength is less than 20. If some special circumstance were present, he might get a check to jump an unusually long distance.



That's not entirely accurate.  Strength(Athletics) allows PCs to try and jump an unusually long distance.  It doesn't give how far and with what DCs, so one DM might be like for every 5 you get on the check, you go 1 extra foot, and another might be for each number higher than 15 you roll, you go 1 extra foot or a number of other methods.

You get to go your strength distance with no roll(certain).  X extra feet possibly, depending on the roll and DM method(uncertain).  And no roll if the distance is simply not possible with Strength + max X(certain).


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I don't feel the force of that _ever_. A fortiori I don't feel its bolded force.
> 
> Why does PC A insulting a NPC prevent PC B from ever achiving B's goal with that NPC?




Because I expect the insulted character to remember that insult, and I probably used all of PC B's good mojo not getting roped into PC A's idiocy? Because I expect goals passed up or missed not to be available again via the same path? It's clear we have pretty wildly different expectations of play in most cases, in terms of the fiction and in terms of the rules of the game and in terms of player behavior around the table.



pemerton said:


> In our Cortex+ Heroic vikings game, the fact that one PC (the skinchanging trickster) failed in his atempt to sell a giant chieftain his own ox after stealing it from the barn (the chieftain recognised the ox and tried to eat the offending PC) didn't stop another PC (the level-headed warthane) from first persuading a giant shaman of the importance of his mission and with the shaman's help then persuading the chieftain himself to offer help rather than eat the PCs.




So your trickster's actions weren't able to derail the warthane's actions that had already happened. Makes sense to me. I dunno if I'd have stepped in so readily as the warthane, though. Maybe the giant chieftain only needs to eat the one PC (the idiot trickster, in this case) and after that he'll be more willing to deal with the other PCs who had nothing to do with the idiocy.


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> I can't (and won't try to) speak for the other two, but I'd find the behavior of the player whose character insulted the tyrant *while I was negotiating with him* to be literally infuriating. You're not only keeping my character from achieving the goal of the negotiation now, you're keeping my character from *ever* achieving that goal with this NPC. It has vibes of PvP to me--and I utterly detest PvP.




The problem is that it takes 2 to tango.  I don't believe we can give the DM a pass for playing the NPC to their conception while condemning the player for playing his PC to his conception.

The player insulting the tyrant didn't cause the negotiation to end.  The DM choosing to have the NPC react that way did.  Was such a potentially realistic NPC reaction?  YES!  But it wasn't the only realistic NPC reaction.

IMO.  A DM should strive to play an NPC such that one or two remarks by one of the players will not totally upend the other players fun (in this case if other players were having fun negotiating then the potentially realistic NPC reaction to the insult was the wrong potentially realistic NPC reaction to go with).  IMO the NPC's reaction, which the DM controls, is the direct cause of the negotiating fun ending, so why not lay the blame on the DM where it appears to belong?


----------



## Lanefan

Nagol said:


> The PC is part of the shared world.  The PC is being retired by the player.  Therefore someone else (namely the DM) needs to operate the character.



Massive disconnect here.

The PC is being retired by the player thus is (for now or forever) no longer adventuring; but the player still controls what it does in its retirement.  This can be as simple as saying "I stay in town and do spell research for a few years." (which really needs little if any further input from anyone until those few years are up) or as complex as "I hire a ship and a crew and where the map is blank, I go." (which probably means a night in the pub sometime where you and the player determine what becomes of this voyage).



> Can the player decide to reprise his ownership?



Reprise his ownership?  Ownership never left the player in the first place!



> Maybe, depending on the reason for retirement.  Can the player use the PC in a different campaign?  Sure!  But the currently operating campaign exists with that character in it.  The world is not altered by the player taking a different PC.



Ah...something's beginning to dawn on me here - are you coming from a strict standpoint of "a player may only ever have one PC in the campaign world at a time"?  Because if this is so, there's another big disconnect: as both player and DM I expect players to end up with several (or more!) PCs out there in the game world, of whom one or two are active at any given time.

In the game I play in, I currently have nine.  One is in the party we'll (I think) be playing tonight.  Another three are in three other active parties, each currently on hold while we play this one.  One is retired for now; one is retired probably forever, but they are both still mine.  One has in effect made herself a hench to another player's PC and if asked I'd hand her over either to that player or the DM.  And two who I had thought were long-term dead were recently found and rescued (one) and revived (the other), so in that party I'll have three active PCs if-when we get back to it, at least for the remainder of that adventure. (I've good in-character reasons to split 'em up afterwards)



> I as DM control the freaking universe outside the purview of the PC(s) directly under the players' control.  If you retire your control over a PC voluntarily or involuntarily, that character now belongs to me.



Retiring my PC from adventuring is my choice, and a common enough occurrence. Retiring my control over that PC - particularly if I'm still otherwise in the game - is also my choice and mine alone, and is an extremely rare occurrence. The two choices are not tied together.

That, and often I'm retiring one PC in order to cycle another back in; and in a year I might reverse the process.  Gets boring playing the same one all the time. 



> Most of the time there won't be conflict because I have no vested interest in controlling one particular NPC over another and in fact have a minor vested interest in reducing the spotlight on a former PC.  Sometimes, crap happens though and a particular NPC is best suited to a situation.  If that happens to be a former PC, OK.  I'll try to portray the character sensibly and within its established history and characterization as I would any other character.



If that PC's player is still in the game the PC is the player's to control.

If that PC's player has left the game I'll only use it with the player's permission (if I can contact said player) or I won't use it at all.  The exceptions to this are a) having old characters reappear in something like a dream sequence, that has no lasting impact on anything or b) active PCs touching base with retired characters to keep up friendships, exchange info, and the like.



> The former player may or may not be invited to provide input as I deem appropriate.



Even if that player is still sitting there at the table?



> The NPC may or may not be eligible to be promoted back to PC status depending on their new role in the campaign.



This touches on a whole different can o' worms, that being adventuring NPCs and their status within the party.  I treat 'em just like PCs, as do the players; mostly because the PCs in the fiction would treat them as just one of the team.



> If the players come back a few months later to recruit a former PC, assuming it is available and still appropriate for PC status, the player will be faced with a choice: which PC does the player wish to control?  The new PC or the old PC.  Pick one.  The other is a NPC.



Again a hard one-PC-per-player stance; I'd almost always allow the player to run both; even more so in this case because it's the other players (as PCs) seeking out that character.


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> The problem is that it takes 2 to tango.  I don't believe we can give the DM a pass for playing the NPC to their conception while condemning the player for playing his PC to his conception.




In principle, I'm willing to agree with you, except for the description of the player's motivations as being (paraphrasing) "probably boredom" and not any deep conception of his character.



FrogReaver said:


> IMO.  A DM should strive to play an NPC such that one or two remarks by one of the players will not totally upend the other players fun (in this case if other players were having fun negotiating then the potentially realistic NPC reaction to the insult was the wrong potentially realistic NPC reaction to go with).  IMO the NPC's reaction, which the DM controls, is the direct cause of the negotiating fun ending, so why not lay the blame on the DM where it appears to belong?




Yes, that's a reasonable way to prep an NPC, but it's not the only way to prep an NPC. And I think it's cute that you think the player would have stopped with just the one insult. I'm probably more than a little twitchy, here (I've played with someone like this, I think) but a player willing to insult the NPC I'm negotiating with is willing to insult that NPC again; how many insults is it realistic for a tyrant to tolerate? I blame the player who was "probably bored" and decided to spit on someone else's fun. Yes, there were probably GM-side alternatives, but once a player decides to be disruptive it tends to turn into an out-of-game problem with in-game implications.


----------



## Lanefan

Fanaelialae said:


> Yeah, we generally don't run the types of characters that can't be trusted by the party, as it puts a serious strain on the credulity of why the characters are even tolerating this person in their group. Obviously, it's simply because that character is a PC, but that's based entirely on meta information, not on what the PCs would actually do. So we don't really do that these days. The PC can be untrustworthy towards people outside a party, but they don't violate the party's trust.



That the party knows about.

Only an idiot PC would break a party's trust in such a way as to allow the party to find out about it.

Then again, look at the first three Pirates of the Caribbean.  In the end nobody trusts anybody in that series, but when they have to they work together - until the danger has passed at which point they stab each other in the back.  Great stuff!

"_I'm not sure I want rescue from you lot.  Four of you have tried to kill me in the past; one of you succeeded._" - Jack Sparrow, while in Davy Jones' locker.


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> In principle, I'm willing to agree with you, except for the description of the player's motivations as being (paraphrasing) "probably boredom" and not any deep conception of his character.




1.  Did the player himself say it was boredom or is that just speculation?
2.  What does it matter if the player was bored and also had their PC do something that was realistic for their PC to do?  It seems to me that could just as easily be categorized as good play.

I think what often gets pushed as disruptive player behavior isn't actually disruptive behavior at all.



> Yes, that's a reasonable way to prep an NPC, but it's not the only way to prep an NPC.




It is if you want the group as a whole to have fun.  1 dimensional NPC's that have to be solved as a puzzle are always going to lead to situations like what we had here.



> And I think it's cute that you think the player would have stopped with just the one insult.




1.  You never gave him a chance with clear stakes to see where that path led.



> I'm probably more than a little twitchy, here (I've played with someone like this, I think) but a player willing to insult the NPC I'm negotiating with is willing to insult that NPC again; how many insults is it realistic for a tyrant to tolerate?




I think the best answer there is he would tolerate as many as the other players talk him into tolerating.



> I blame the player who was "probably bored" and decided to spit on someone else's fun. Yes, there were probably GM-side alternatives, but once a player decides to be disruptive it tends to turn into an out-of-game problem with in-game implications.




The DM chose the NPC reaction.  That's at the DMs feet.  You keep calling the player disruptive with nothing to support that notion - nor whether it was justifiable for him to be bored in the first place.


----------



## Lanefan

prabe said:


> Because I expect the insulted character to remember that insult, and I probably used all of PC B's good mojo not getting roped into PC A's idiocy?



Maybe PC A thinks the whole talky idea is idiocy in the first place, guesses (rightly or wrongly) it's doomed to failure, and starts what he sees as the inevitable brawl before someone else starts it for him...

And sure, if it's in PC B's nature to remember this and take it up with PC A later, that's fine too.  Maybe they argue over it.  Maybe they even fight over it.  So what?  Let 'em.


> Because I expect goals passed up or missed not to be available again via the same path?



Assuming they were ever available on that path to begin with; but you-as-player likely have no way of knowing that.



> It's clear we have pretty wildly different expectations of play in most cases, in terms of the fiction and in terms of the rules of the game and in terms of player behavior around the table.



Not sure what the different expectations around the fiction would be - I think there's general consensus here that we all want the fiction to be more or less consistent with itself and have at least some amount of internal logic such that outcomes that *do* occur usually fall with the predictable range of outcomes that *could* occur.

As for player behavior around the table: as long as it stays in character, follow your character wherever it leads you.


----------



## Lanefan

FrogReaver said:


> The problem is that it takes 2 to tango.  I don't believe we can give the DM a pass for playing the NPC to their conception while condemning the player for playing his PC to his conception.
> 
> The player insulting the tyrant didn't cause the negotiation to end.  The DM choosing to have the NPC react that way did.  Was such a potentially realistic NPC reaction?  YES!  But it wasn't the only realistic NPC reaction.
> 
> IMO.  A DM should strive to play an NPC such that one or two remarks by one of the players will not totally upend the other players fun (in this case if other players were having fun negotiating then the potentially realistic NPC reaction to the insult was the wrong potentially realistic NPC reaction to go with).  IMO the NPC's reaction, which the DM controls, is the direct cause of the negotiating fun ending, so why not lay the blame on the DM where it appears to belong?



I say we give them both a pass for playing their characters to their conception, and that there's no real blame to lay on either.

Something that's come up here a few times is concern for a DM sticking too rigidly to what's in her mind as to how a scene might play out; but note the same can also be said about players either individually or as a group: sometimes one or more players won't let go of a plan* even after unfolding events show that plan isn't the best.

* - often it's the players most involved with making said plan that are the most reluctant to let it go.


----------



## FrogReaver

Lanefan said:


> I say we give them both a pass for playing their characters to their conception, and that there's no real blame to lay on either.




I agree with the rest but this sentence I don't.

I agree with the general notion that players sticking to rigidly to their character conception and not considering alternative courses of action that are also plausible for their character is often a detriment to the game.  And the same most definitely applies to DMs.

But in this scenario and in general also - a single insult from a single PC shouldn't solely derail and escalate an otherwise peaceful negotiation to violence.  So I think we have enough from this situation to show that it's the DMs whose action should have been different to potentially change the outcome.

That said in general, the player typically could have also chosen a different plausible course of action thus it's usually the case that the blame rests equally on both the DM and the player.



> Something that's come up here a few times is concern for a DM sticking too rigidly to what's in her mind as to how a scene might play out; but note the same can also be said about players either individually or as a group: sometimes one or more players won't let go of a plan* even after unfolding events show that plan isn't the best.
> 
> * - often it's the players most involved with making said plan that are the most reluctant to let it go.




This I agree with.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Campbell said:


> @prabe @billd91 @Fanaelialae
> 
> I personally find that level of group coordination extraordinary. I do not think it should be taken as a given.
> 
> For my part a good deal of how I learned to run games is focused on getting players to play their characters as individuals. If a character is present on the scene during a social interaction I would expect that they would be actively involved in the negotiations. If they were not NPCs would bring that up. I might also ask them questions about how they see things.
> 
> Now if they are like not in the scene because they are doing other things or are on the other side of the room that's one thing. If they interrupt when I am specifically addressing someone else that's another. If your character is physically present you are in the scene.
> 
> Of course at the end of the day a lot of this confusion comes from the lack of instruction provided to players and GMs by the game. There is no meaningful sense of where your priorities ought to be so unless that is resolved by group explicitly you are apt to run into mismatched play priorities.



You're arguably right. My group certainly wasn't like that when we first got together something like 20 years ago. It was something that developed over time, and was nurtured in newcomers as they joined our game.

That said, I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to expect from mature players (if they're teenagers or something, it probably is entirely unreasonable). That's not to imply that not playing this way is immature. Mature players might enjoy non-cooperative play, and if that's their dynamic then sure, why not. 

I mean, to me the fact that you should play a cooperative game cooperatively is not that much different from being aware that you shouldn't "accidentally" trip your own teammates in basketball just because you want the ball to be passed to you. It's not obvious to everyone, but I feel like for most people it is reasonably intuitive. Even back before we reached our current level of coordination, there was a general acknowledgment from most players that antagonistic play wasn't... ideal. If only because it tended to cause real world arguments and bad feelings.

It's one thing for the players to riff off each other and decide that the barbarian is going to cut the boring negotiation short by attacking the mad tyrant. It's another thing for the barbarian to pull the rug out from under the negotiator by ruining a scene that the negotiator was engaging with. Even in groups where players don't side bar to come to an agreement on the direction to go, you still often see this kind of play. It might be the DM looking at the other players and asking "are you going to let him do that". Or the negotiating player might look at the barbarian player askance and say, "come on man, let me do my thing". Certainly not every table does this, but I don't think it's a rare playstyle. We just cut out the risk of clashing egos by having a polite OOC conversation about it, which is a slightly more direct way of going about the same thing.



Lanefan said:


> That the party knows about.
> 
> Only an idiot PC would break a party's trust in such a way as to allow the party to find out about it.
> 
> Then again, look at the first three Pirates of the Caribbean.  In the end nobody trusts anybody in that series, but when they have to they work together - until the danger has passed at which point they stab each other in the back.  Great stuff!
> 
> "_I'm not sure I want rescue from you lot.  Four of you have tried to kill me in the past; one of you succeeded._" - Jack Sparrow, while in Davy Jones' locker.



No, because either it's such a trivial act that no one cares, or it eventually comes to light, at which point the only reason they stick together is that they're PCs (or the equivalent of PCs in the case of the pirates movies, which I've watched because my wife likes them but aren't exactly my favorite movies).

We once played an evil campaign where one of the players was a homebrew torturer class who could make a person or animal into their minion by breaking their will. My character was a medic who always found the good in everyone, especially those who didn't deserve it, and was also the leader of the party. The torturer played it up that he had rescued his minions from terrible conditions (explaining the injuries he had inflicted). It worked as an excellent dynamic at the table, and everyone was greatly entertained. But the thing is, he wasn't acting against the party's interests. He was simply doing his own thing, which might have caused the party to view him in a different light had it been known. Even had it come to light, my character would have argued his case since he was the worst kind of apologist. 

Contrast that with another guy in that same campaign, who was jealous that I was party leader (it was determined by a homebrew reputation system, but I honestly never used it to force anyone to do anything). Ultimately, when it became apparent that he couldn't seize the leader position, he tried to get my character killed and instead caused a TPK that ended the campaign. We don't game with that guy anymore. We used to be more tolerant but eventually came to the conclusion that we don't get enough game time to waste it with people who are willing to ruin everyone's fun for their own selfish reasons. 

YMMV


----------



## FrogReaver

A couple of other points.  

When we were playing in CoS the burgomaster social encounter was one of the most frustrating I've ever been a part of.  So I'm going to go out on a limb and say the adventure itself in that particular aspect probably is the true source of everyones frustration.  A DM running an officially published module and trying to be true to it is hard to fault.  A truly exceptional DM may have recognized the potential issue with this part and modified it a bit.  

I also think DM's and players both are very bad with handling social interactions and part of that is because the social interactions in our sources of inspiration are often quite different from person to person.  Perhaps approaching social interaction more from a action/goal methodology would be helpful.  
I think if the PC had said "I say X insult to the NPC to show my allies that he is more afraid of us than we are of him".  Failure in that context may simply be that the NPC demands more.  Extreme failure may be that the NPC arrests the PC and uses him as part of his leverage.  Success may have been that allies get advantage.


----------



## prabe

Lanefan said:


> Maybe PC A thinks the whole talky idea is idiocy in the first place, guesses (rightly or wrongly) it's doomed to failure, and starts what he sees as the inevitable brawl before someone else starts it for him...
> 
> And sure, if it's in PC B's nature to remember this and take it up with PC A later, that's fine too.  Maybe they argue over it.  Maybe they even fight over it.  So what?  Let 'em.




I really detest PvP and this sort of thing seems likely to lead to it.



Lanefan said:


> Assuming they were ever available on that path to begin with; but you-as-player likely have no way of knowing that.
> {/QUOTE]
> 
> And because of one player's impatience it's now unknowable. I'd rather find out whether the goal was there myself than have a fellow-PC prevent me from getting there.
> 
> 
> 
> Lanefan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what the different expectations around the fiction would be - I think there's general consensus here that we all want the fiction to be more or less consistent with itself and have at least some amount of internal logic such that outcomes that *do* occur usually fall with the predictable range of outcomes that *could* occur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds good to me, but I think there have been others here who were less interested in internal consistency than you or I are.
> 
> 
> 
> Lanefan said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for player behavior around the table: as long as it stays in character, follow your character wherever it leads you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm less sure about this: There is a difference between player and character, but the stories about players using "in character" to excuse asshattery are not all apocryphal. When in doubt, don't be an asshat.
Click to expand...


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> Yes, that's a reasonable way to prep an NPC, but it's not the only way to prep an NPC. And I think it's cute that you think the player would have stopped with just the one insult. I'm probably more than a little twitchy, here (I've played with someone like this, I think) but a player willing to insult the NPC I'm negotiating with is willing to insult that NPC again; how many insults is it realistic for a tyrant to tolerate? I blame the player who was "probably bored" and decided to spit on someone else's fun. Yes, there were probably GM-side alternatives, but once a player decides to be disruptive it tends to turn into an out-of-game problem with in-game implications.



It would depend on the insult, but if it's not to terrible, I'd have the NPC issue a very direct threat in response.  A second would be foolish and result in what happened in the OP.  The key is to let the player know that another one won't be tolerated.


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> 1.  Did the player himself say it was boredom or is that just speculation?
> 2.  What does it matter if the player was bored and also had their PC do something that was realistic for their PC to do?  It seems to me that could just as easily be categorized as good play.
> 
> I think what often gets pushed as disruptive player behavior isn't actually disruptive behavior at all.




I reckon we have different definitions of "good play." If the Face is doing Face Things, don't interrupt, any more than you'd want someone to interrupt the Stealth Dude while he was doing Stealth Dude Things,  or the I Know That Guy while he's Knowing Things (and probably drinking wine ...). I don't see how stepping on someone else's fun is "good play," especially not if while stepping on someone else's fun you prevent the party from doing what the party was trying to do.

There was a conversation between the OP and the player who insulted the tyrant, where he apologized and might have explained why he did it. I'll admit I haven't gone looking for that, and have been working from the OP's description--he knows the player, after all.




FrogReaver said:


> It is if you want the group as a whole to have fun.  1 dimensional NPC's that have to be solved as a puzzle are always going to lead to situations like what we had here.




"Reacts badly to being insulted" is one dimension, yes, and while there could be others this is the button that particular player pushed. It's plausible that the PC/s negotiation with him were finding other dimensions--OP sez that was progressing toward something, at least.




FrogReaver said:


> 1.  You never gave him a chance with clear stakes to see where that path led.
> 
> I think the best answer there is he would tolerate as many as the other players talk him into tolerating.




You have played or run the adventure; I have not. Is there really no evidence on which the PCs can base any guesses about the Burgermaster's personality? OP sez the PCs had some idea of whom they were going to be dealing with.

OP also sez there was some roleplay and good rolls that led to the PCs not involved in the insulting or the hostage-taking being able to leave freely-ish. Sounds to me as though they talked him into at least some forbearance.



FrogReaver said:


> The DM chose the NPC reaction.  That's at the DMs feet.  You keep calling the player disruptive with nothing to support that notion - nor whether it was justifiable for him to be bored in the first place.




The player chose the PC's reaction; why are you not laying anything at his feet?


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> The player chose the PC's reaction; why are you not laying anything at his feet?




Rest later, this first. 

I think that perhaps I and others aren't doing a good part of linking our points together because the answer to your question IMO should have been self evident.

The answer in detail is:
The insulting PCs action could have resulted in any number of equally realistic reactions from the NPC.  The DM chose a reaction which then caused another PC to choose an action to attempt to take him hostage.  So then we work backwards and see whose actions were justified. 

The player that attempted to take the NPC hostage - were his actions justified?  From a fictional perspective, I think so.  From a game perspective - any escalating action that is in direct response to a direct threat toward a party members survival seems justified in the game to me.

Was the NPC's actions justified?  From a fictional perspective, I think so.  From a game perspective, a single insult in a peaceful negotiation should really not be leading directly toward something that can be perceived as a threat on the PC survival.  That's where the NPC's actions fail to be justified.

Was the PC's actions that insulted the NPC justified?  From a fictional perspective, I think yes.  From a game perspective, I believe they were justified because there is no indication that a single insult will directly lead to a threat to PC survival.  In fact, given our analysis above it actually shouldn't have led to that at all. 

Thus, I don't see any reason that we can fault either player for what happened.


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> I reckon we have different definitions of "good play." If the Face is doing Face Things, don't interrupt, any more than you'd want someone to interrupt the Stealth Dude while he was doing Stealth Dude Things,  or the I Know That Guy while he's Knowing Things (and probably drinking wine ...). I don't see how stepping on someone else's fun is "good play," especially not if while stepping on someone else's fun you prevent the party from doing what the party was trying to do.




I find the game runs smoother when everyone is involved in every pillar of the game.  IMO, every character should be contributing in combat, every character should be contributing in exploration, every character should be contributing in social interaction.  You may be the best at one particular pillar but that doesn't mean others sit back and do nothing.

The player that did the insult didn't step on anyones fun.  The DM having his NPC respond to that insult in the way he did was the cause of the fun ending. 

Will you do me a favor, and before you respond, will you ask yourself whether I could make the point above about it.  It just seems pointless to say something you should already know the counterpoint to. 



> There was a conversation between the OP and the player who insulted the tyrant, where he apologized and might have explained why he did it. I'll admit I haven't gone looking for that, and have been working from the OP's description--he knows the player, after all.




I've apologized many times for actions I felt were perfectly legitimate because someone else took them wrong - especially among friends.



> "Reacts badly to being insulted" is one dimension, yes, and while there could be others this is the button that particular player pushed. It's plausible that the PC/s negotiation with him were finding other dimensions--OP sez that was progressing toward something, at least.




Sure.  Reacts badly to being insulted doesn't mean will never take an insult from anyone in any situation whatsoever.  It also doesn't justify immediately threatening the PC's life by calling "guards".



> You have played or run the adventure; I have not. Is there really no evidence on which the PCs can base any guesses about the Burgermaster's personality? OP sez the PCs had some idea of whom they were going to be dealing with.




I've played it a long time ago.  So exact details I can't tell you.  I've just got general impressions at this point.



> OP also sez there was some roleplay and good rolls that led to the PCs not involved in the insulting or the hostage-taking being able to leave freely-ish. Sounds to me as though they talked him into at least some forbearance.




Sure.  No one said that part didn't run smoothly.  Just the part leading up to it.  Anyways, speaking of that part, *it bothers me that 2 PC's would disavow their companions and want to leave them to die.  *


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> Rest later, this first.




Yeah. I have a session to run in a couple of hours, and I don't need to be as cranky I'm clearly getting about this. The PCs have enough problems ...



FrogReaver said:


> I think that perhaps I and others aren't doing a good part of linking our points together because the answer to your question IMO should have been self evident.
> 
> The answer in detail is:
> The insulting PCs action could have resulted in any number of equally realistic reactions from the NPC.  The DM chose a reaction which then caused another PC to choose an action to attempt to take him hostage.  So then we work backwards and see whose actions were justified.




If you've read the adventure, how realistic are any of those other options. The best one I've seen is a response that makes it clear further insult will not be tolerated (which I predict the player would then test, which would then lead to ... what happened).



FrogReaver said:


> The player that attempted to take the NPC hostage - were his actions justified?  From a fictional perspective, I think so.  From a game perspective - any escalating action that is in direct response to a direct threat toward a party members survival seems justified in the game to me.




I'm ... willing to go along with this, if the information was really so limited that he thought the call for the guards was (for example) to have the PCs arrested and not escorted from the NPC's chambers. There were, however, two other party members who didn't try to take the Burgermaster hostage, so maybe the call for guards was understood differently by the different players/characters? Differently understood does not mean unjustified, to be sure, but it seems to indicate the situation was not as clear as all-a-that.



FrogReaver said:


> Was the NPC's actions justified?  From a fictional perspective, I think so.  From a game perspective, a single insult in a peaceful negotiation should really not be leading directly toward something that can be perceived as a threat on the PC survival.  That's where the NPC's actions fail to be justified.




See, I'm seeing it more from a fictional perspective than a game-ish one. The fact there's an in-fiction justification makes the actions justified for me. I don't think that makes those the only justifiable actions, of course, and there is something to be said for making sure the PCs know what the score is before they start doing stuff.



FrogReaver said:


> Was the PC's actions that insulted the NPC justified?  From a fictional perspective, I think yes.  From a game perspective, I believe they were justified because there is no indication that a single insult will directly lead to a threat to PC survival.  In fact, given our analysis above it actually shouldn't have led to that at all.




I'm less sure about this. If the PC's plan all along was to use the negotiation as a ruse to get into the chambers and attack the Burgermaster, why not just ... attack the Burgermaster? What does the PC think he's going to accomplish by insulting him? It doesn't sound as though expecting it to make the negotiations go better is reasonable, and if he wanted to draw the Burgermaster into the fight why wasn't he the one to attack the Burgermaster? You can maybe make an argument that the player didn't have a clear picture of the stakes before he declared the character's actions, which is why I see the suggestion @Maxperson made as reasonable, but it doesn't seem to me (based on what the OP said and my experience being at the table with that sort of player) as though that's likely to accomplish anything more than more insults.



FrogReaver said:


> Thus, I don't see any reason that we can fault either player for what happened.




And I do. I suspect this is where differences in viewpoint and experiences come into play. Among other things, I'm looking at this from more of a "makes sense as fiction" perspective and you seem to be looking at it from more of a "makes sense as (or makes good) gameplay" perspective. There's something to be said about gameplay, given that it's an actual game, and I genuinely appreciate that perspective, in spite of being cranky about this.


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> I find the game runs smoother when everyone is involved in every pillar of the game.  IMO, every character should be contributing in combat, every character should be contributing in exploration, every character should be contributing in social interaction.  You may be the best at one particular pillar but that doesn't mean others sit back and do nothing.
> 
> The player that did the insult didn't step on anyones fun.  The DM having his NPC respond to that insult in the way he did was the cause of the fun ending.
> 
> Will you do me a favor, and before you respond, will you ask yourself whether I could make the point above about it.  It just seems pointless to say something you should already know the counterpoint to.
> 
> {snip}
> 
> Sure.  No one said that part didn't run smoothly.  Just the part leading up to it.  Anyways, speaking of that part, *it bothers me that 2 PC's would disavow their companions and want to leave them to die.  *




I think the root of my reaction to this is being stuck (to the extent one can really be stuck--all I can say is I was younger and I didn't have many friends into TRPGs) in a group with a player who was persistently disruptive in a way similar to how this player (arguably) was. He persisted in making dumb-ass smart-ass comments and insulting every NPC we came across, especially the ones we were trying not to get into fights with, daring the GM to have the NPCs stand up for themselves when it would clearly keep the party from attaining whatever goals we were trying to move toward; as the player with characters built for social interaction in several games with this player, it felt as though he was determined not to let my characters do what they were built to do. It's obvious to me that has shaped my thinking on this.

As far as everyone participating, I agree that's a fine ideal, but not every PC is going to be able to be helpful in every situation. Having a character not do anything in a given scene isn't really any different from splitting the party, which at least one of my parties does often (and which I encourage, because in-fiction it means everyone is doing something, even if at-the-table that's not exactly the case).

As to the PCs leaving their fellows to die, that's most of why I think there's more of a problem among the players than between any players and the DM. It is, frankly, something I can see myself doing as a player if another player behaved that way persistently.

I have tried not to be obtuse in my responses--especially not here, since you were finding my responses frustrating, for which I apologize.


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> Yeah. I have a session to run in a couple of hours, and I don't need to be as cranky I'm clearly getting about this. The PCs have enough problems ...




LOL.  I will gladly be the cause of their demise!  Hope you have a good session.



> If you've read the adventure, how realistic are any of those other options. The best one I've seen is a response that makes it clear further insult will not be tolerated (which I predict the player would then test, which would then lead to ... what happened).




Possibly.  Possibly not.  I'll say this, if that happened I would be blaming the player for the same reasons I am now blaming the DM.  Doing something after the stakes are clear is on the player and especially if that impacts other players fun when he would have had other legitimate reactions to such a statement of clear stakes then I would soundly list that as the players fault.



> I'm ... willing to go along with this, if the information was really so limited that he thought the call for the guards was (for example) to have the PCs arrested and not escorted from the NPC's chambers. There were, however, two other party members who didn't try to take the Burgermaster hostage, so maybe the call for guards was understood differently by the different players/characters? Differently understood does not mean unjustified, to be sure, but it seems to indicate the situation was not as clear as all-a-that.




I would say that illustrates why it's a justification.  Half the PC's took the calling of guards 1 way and the other half the other.  That means the action of calling the guards was ambiguous at best.  Which is exactly my point.  It's not that the NPC's intent needs to be to kill the player's its that the players can legitimately see that as a plausible motive and thus they are justified in reacting as if their lives are on the line.



> See, I'm seeing it more from a fictional perspective than a game-ish one. The fact there's an in-fiction justification makes the actions justified for me. I don't think that makes those the only justifiable actions, of course, and there is something to be said for making sure the PCs know what the score is before they start doing stuff.




I think both the fictional elements and the game elements need to align for actions to be justified. 

More importantly though, it seems you are condemning the player for insulting the NPC solely for game-ish concenrs - namely ruining other players fun - which is not a fictional concern at all.  It's almost like you hold a different standard for the DM and his NPC's than you do for theplayers and their PC's.



> I'm less sure about this. If the PC's plan all along was to use the negotiation as a ruse to get into the chambers and attack the Burgermaster, why not just ... attack the Burgermaster? What does the PC think he's going to accomplish by insulting him? It doesn't sound as though expecting it to make the negotiations go better is reasonable, and if he wanted to draw the Burgermaster into the fight why wasn't he the one to attack the Burgermaster? You can maybe make an argument that the player didn't have a clear picture of the stakes before he declared the character's actions, which is why I see the suggestion @Maxperson made as reasonable, but it doesn't seem to me (based on what the OP said and my experience being at the table with that sort of player) as though that's likely to accomplish anything more than more insults.




Maybe.  I still think it's worth testing.  Maybe even asking the player why his character is insulting him on the 2nd insult. 



> And I do. I suspect this is where differences in viewpoint and experiences come into play. Among other things, I'm looking at this from more of a "makes sense as fiction" perspective and you seem to be looking at it from more of a "makes sense as (or makes good) gameplay" perspective. There's something to be said about gameplay, given that it's an actual game, and I genuinely appreciate that perspective, in spite of being cranky about this.




Discussion boards tend to amplify differences.  We are probably much closer in reality that it sounds right now.


----------



## Manbearcat

Just finished a Blades session and it reminded me of this thread.  Not because there was any symmetry in play, but because it reminded me of how boldness of action and PCs not being on the same page can lead to absolute memorable calamity but in the best of ways (unlike this play anecdote where apparently everyone was unhappy).

The PCs are at War with their primary rival Gang who is one Tier above the PCs' Crew.  War carries several negative mechanical effects and implications on play.  The way to get out of War status is to (a) eliminate the enemy Faction or (b) negotiate a "cease fire" and a new Status (Status of -3 means War).  

In the course of the last Information Gathering/Free Play, the PC Lurk (Infiltrator/Thief archetype) found the location of the rival Gang's financier/bank where their Stash is kept.  Fortunately, its a flat in a tenement building adjacent to the Ironworks (which is a facility where they have a contact so that gives them access to rappel down to the hideout's bay window as point of entrance).  Unfortunately, this financier/banker also possesses the holdings of other low Tier Gangs...so the prospect of negative Status with several Gangs and a lot of Heat is high and security will invariably be high.

The hope for the mission was the following:

1)  Reduce the Hold of the rival Gang so they "Tier-down" to the same Tier as the PC's Crew.

2)  Gain a lot of Stash.

3)  Not incur too much collateral damage (best of luck with that) because the odds were high for that here.

The other PC is a Whisper (basically a Warlock archetype who Attunes to the Ghost Field for all kinds of supernatural affects/spiritual summonings).  The Lurk and the Whisper have all kinds of issues because of the fallout that has occured because of failed attunements (demonic possessions and bargains that are haunting them, poltergeist "hanger ons", and other similar things).

Well, things were going well early and they absolutely snowballed because of a sequence of poor Action Rolls that yielded some Minor and Major consequences (and one poor decision) by the Whisper which involved dealing with a giant Python that was constricting him in the dark (the vault was accessed via a "zoo" room with all sorts of caged animals and a free-roaming python).  A member of the security team came in to feed rats to the python (after hearing the noise), the Lurk knocked him out (pommel to the back of the ear) as he entered the room with a 5 (success with complication) on a Prowl that was Pushed for an extra die.  Complication is the candelabra he was holding comes crashing to the floor.  The "being constricted" Whisper Attuned to the Ghost Field for another Success with a Complication so ghost hands manifested to catch the candelabra and guide it safely to the floor.  However, supernatural complications + further complications (and a poor decision to roll Resistance - Prowess rather than spend 1 Armor to reduce Harm 1 from the Python) = the Whisper incurred 12 total stress.  That is the threshold for Trauma (in this case Haunted) and knock him out of the scene.

Complete clustereff ensued and a narrow escape.

Literally nothing they wanted to accomplished happened and they gained all sorts of bad things (Heat, Stress, Haunted Trauma, a loss of a lantern, another supernatural complication, a complication of "a member of the security team 'made' me during the escape" for the Lurk, and a Clock incurred by the Lurk to pay back a boatman driver that gave them egress via a canal that occurred as a result of the Lurk player using a Flashback - and incurring 1 Stress from it).

Again, complete clustereff.

PCs thematically in positions that place them against each other in their portfolio (the Lurk HATES the supernatural baggage and fallout caused by the Whisper) and the Whisper player made a poor decision (chose Resistance roll to reduce Harm 1 rather than spending 1 Armor).  

However, this may have been our most fun Blades game to date.  It was at least the most hysterical and likely the most memorable with the highest of stakes for sure (this may start a downward spiral for this Crew such that their story will end badly).  

Why was this a great time and the game cited in the lead post was regaled as such a bad time?


----------



## FrogReaver

Manbearcat said:


> Just finished a Blades session and it reminded me of this thread.  Not because there was any symmetry in play, but because it reminded me of how boldness of action and PCs not being on the same page can lead to absolute memorable calamity but in the best of ways (unlike this play anecdote where apparently everyone was unhappy).
> 
> The PCs are at War with their primary rival Gang who is one Tier above the PCs' Crew.  War carries several negative mechanical effects and implications on play.  The way to get out of War status is to (a) eliminate the enemy Faction or (b) negotiate a "cease fire" and a new Status (Status of -3 means War).
> 
> In the course of the last Information Gathering/Free Play, the PC Lurk (Infiltrator/Thief archetype) found the location of the rival Gang's financier/bank where their Stash is kept.  Fortunately, its a flat in a tenement building adjacent to the Ironworks (which is a facility where they have a contact so that gives them access to rappel down to the hideout's bay window as point of entrance).  Unfortunately, this financier/banker also possesses the holdings of other low Tier Gangs...so the prospect of negative Status with several Gangs and a lot of Heat is high and security will invariably be high.
> 
> The hope for the mission was the following:
> 
> 1)  Reduce the Hold of the rival Gang so they "Tier-down" to the same Tier as the PC's Crew.
> 
> 2)  Gain a lot of Stash.
> 
> 3)  Not incur too much collateral damage (best of luck with that) because the odds were high for that here.
> 
> The other PC is a Whisper (basically a Warlock archetype who Attunes to the Ghost Field for all kinds of supernatural affects/spiritual summonings).  The Lurk and the Whisper have all kinds of issues because of the fallout that has occured because of failed attunements (demonic possessions and bargains that are haunting them, poltergeist "hanger ons", and other similar things).
> 
> Well, things were going well early and they absolutely snowballed because of a sequence of poor Action Rolls that yielded some Minor and Major consequences (and one poor decision) by the Whisper which involved dealing with a giant Python that was constricting him in the dark (the vault was accessed via a "zoo" room with all sorts of caged animals and a free-roaming python).  A member of the security team came in to feed rats to the python (after hearing the noise), the Lurk knocked him out (pommel to the back of the ear) as he entered the room with a 5 (success with complication) on a Prowl that was Pushed for an extra die.  Complication is the candelabra he was holding comes crashing to the floor.  The "being constricted" Whisper Attuned to the Ghost Field for another Success with a Complication so ghost hands manifested to catch the candelabra and guide it safely to the floor.  However, supernatural complications + further complications (and a poor decision to roll Resistance - Prowess rather than spend 1 Armor to reduce Harm 1 from the Python) = the Whisper incurred 12 total stress.  That is the threshold for Trauma (in this case Haunted) and knock him out of the scene.
> 
> Complete clustereff ensued and a narrow escape.
> 
> Literally nothing they wanted to accomplished happened and they gained all sorts of bad things (Heat, Stress, Haunted Trauma, a loss of a lantern, another supernatural complication, a complication of "a member of the security team 'made' me during the escape" for the Lurk, and a Clock incurred by the Lurk to pay back a boatman driver that gave them egress via a canal that occurred as a result of the Lurk player using a Flashback - and incurring 1 Stress from it).
> 
> Again, complete clustereff.
> 
> PCs thematically in positions that place them against each other in their portfolio (the Lurk HATES the supernatural baggage and fallout caused by the Whisper) and the Whisper player made a poor decision (chose Resistance roll to reduce Harm 1 rather than spending 1 Armor).
> 
> However, this may have been our most fun Blades game to date.  It was at least the most hysterical and likely the most memorable with the highest of stakes for sure (this may start a downward spiral for this Crew such that their story will end badly).
> 
> Why was this a great time and the game cited in the lead post was regaled as such a bad time?




Probably because 1 PC action didn't immediately take you from step 3 to step 10 where all the bad consequences occurred.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> Why was this a great time and the game cited in the lead post was regaled as such a bad time?




Because Blades in the Dark encourages players to lean into their characters' failures and D&D doesn't?


----------



## Lanefan

prabe said:


> I really detest PvP and this sort of thing seems likely to lead to it.



Where I see PvP (or more correctly PCvPC) as an occasional natural outgrowth of playing independent-thinking characters whose views, goals, ethics and tolerances don't necessarily agree, be that disagreement sometimes or all the time. And yes, sometimes it gets nasty; even murderous.

Even more relevant is when one or more PCs might not be in the party by their own choice e.g. they've been ordered on to the mission by a higher authority, so there's resentment of that along with resentment of having to hang around with - and put up with - these other schlubs.


----------



## Lanefan

prabe said:


> Because Blades in the Dark encourages players to lean into their characters' failures and D&D doesn't?



This, I think, depends on one's personal and-or table's playstyle on the D&D side, particularly in pre-3e editions.  There, one can lean into a character's failings and strengths in whatever ratio one desires in order to end up with a fun character and a memorable time.

3e and forward really tend to emphasize the strengths in characters and try hard to paper over (or mitigate, or outright remove) any failings.  This of course means failings won't be brought out as often, or as willingly, and IMO this is kind of sad.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Manbearcat said:


> Just finished a Blades session and it reminded me of this thread.  Not because there was any symmetry in play, but because it reminded me of how boldness of action and PCs not being on the same page can lead to absolute memorable calamity but in the best of ways (unlike this play anecdote where apparently everyone was unhappy).
> 
> The PCs are at War with their primary rival Gang who is one Tier above the PCs' Crew.  War carries several negative mechanical effects and implications on play.  The way to get out of War status is to (a) eliminate the enemy Faction or (b) negotiate a "cease fire" and a new Status (Status of -3 means War).
> 
> In the course of the last Information Gathering/Free Play, the PC Lurk (Infiltrator/Thief archetype) found the location of the rival Gang's financier/bank where their Stash is kept.  Fortunately, its a flat in a tenement building adjacent to the Ironworks (which is a facility where they have a contact so that gives them access to rappel down to the hideout's bay window as point of entrance).  Unfortunately, this financier/banker also possesses the holdings of other low Tier Gangs...so the prospect of negative Status with several Gangs and a lot of Heat is high and security will invariably be high.
> 
> The hope for the mission was the following:
> 
> 1)  Reduce the Hold of the rival Gang so they "Tier-down" to the same Tier as the PC's Crew.
> 
> 2)  Gain a lot of Stash.
> 
> 3)  Not incur too much collateral damage (best of luck with that) because the odds were high for that here.
> 
> The other PC is a Whisper (basically a Warlock archetype who Attunes to the Ghost Field for all kinds of supernatural affects/spiritual summonings).  The Lurk and the Whisper have all kinds of issues because of the fallout that has occured because of failed attunements (demonic possessions and bargains that are haunting them, poltergeist "hanger ons", and other similar things).
> 
> Well, things were going well early and they absolutely snowballed because of a sequence of poor Action Rolls that yielded some Minor and Major consequences (and one poor decision) by the Whisper which involved dealing with a giant Python that was constricting him in the dark (the vault was accessed via a "zoo" room with all sorts of caged animals and a free-roaming python).  A member of the security team came in to feed rats to the python (after hearing the noise), the Lurk knocked him out (pommel to the back of the ear) as he entered the room with a 5 (success with complication) on a Prowl that was Pushed for an extra die.  Complication is the candelabra he was holding comes crashing to the floor.  The "being constricted" Whisper Attuned to the Ghost Field for another Success with a Complication so ghost hands manifested to catch the candelabra and guide it safely to the floor.  However, supernatural complications + further complications (and a poor decision to roll Resistance - Prowess rather than spend 1 Armor to reduce Harm 1 from the Python) = the Whisper incurred 12 total stress.  That is the threshold for Trauma (in this case Haunted) and knock him out of the scene.
> 
> Complete clustereff ensued and a narrow escape.
> 
> Literally nothing they wanted to accomplished happened and they gained all sorts of bad things (Heat, Stress, Haunted Trauma, a loss of a lantern, another supernatural complication, a complication of "a member of the security team 'made' me during the escape" for the Lurk, and a Clock incurred by the Lurk to pay back a boatman driver that gave them egress via a canal that occurred as a result of the Lurk player using a Flashback - and incurring 1 Stress from it).
> 
> Again, complete clustereff.
> 
> PCs thematically in positions that place them against each other in their portfolio (the Lurk HATES the supernatural baggage and fallout caused by the Whisper) and the Whisper player made a poor decision (chose Resistance roll to reduce Harm 1 rather than spending 1 Armor).
> 
> However, this may have been our most fun Blades game to date.  It was at least the most hysterical and likely the most memorable with the highest of stakes for sure (this may start a downward spiral for this Crew such that their story will end badly).
> 
> Why was this a great time and the game cited in the lead post was regaled as such a bad time?



I would say it's because this arose naturally from the gameplay, rather than from player decisions to undermine each other. The players were all doing their best to succeed at the mission. It wasn't as though the Whisper intentionally sabotaged the Lurk because they thought the mission was dumb. 

In D&D terms, it was akin to rolling a fumble and hitting an ally (well, a series of fumbles). Sure, the character might be a bit salty about it, but the player should recognize that the other player had no real control over the misfortune, hence no hard feelings in the real world. Everyone recognizes it was largely down to bad luck. Maybe the player made a less-than-ideal choice by shooting in the other character's direction, but that's a far cry from active sabotage.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> Because I expect the insulted character to remember that insult, and I probably used all of PC B's good mojo not getting roped into PC A's idiocy? Because I expect goals passed up or missed not to be available again via the same path? It's clear we have pretty wildly different expectations of play in most cases, in terms of the fiction and in terms of the rules of the game and in terms of player behavior around the table.



I don't expect the PCs to be a many-headed hydra. I don't expect NPCs to respond in that vein either.

In genre fiction (comics, movies, books) it is not uncommon for there to be complex dynamics in social interactins. Wolverine insults people and Cyclops calms them down. Gimli threatens to chop of Eomer's head for slurring Galadriel, and by the end of the scene Aragorn has Eomer letting them go free and lending them horses. Sean Bean's character (in Ronin) reveals himself as incompetent around the same time that De Niro's character successfully negotiates for higher pay for all of the team.

Even in real life I have friends who are not friends of one another. And have sometimes been able to calm down disagreements between them.



prabe said:


> So your trickster's actions weren't able to derail the warthane's actions that had already happened.



Maybe you misread?

The giant chieftain is trying to eat the trickster in retaliation at the attempt at oxen-fraud. The warthane, meanwhile, reaches out to a shaman. Warthane and shaman then calm down the chieftain and persuade him to aid rather than help.


----------



## Manbearcat

FrogReaver said:


> Probably because 1 PC action didn't immediately take you from step 3 to step 10 where all the bad consequences occurred.






prabe said:


> Because Blades in the Dark encourages players to lean into their characters' failures and D&D doesn't?






Fanaelialae said:


> I would say it's because this arose naturally from the gameplay, rather than from player decisions to undermine each other. The players were all doing their best to succeed at the mission. It wasn't as though the Whisper intentionally sabotaged the Lurk because they thought the mission was dumb.
> 
> In D&D terms, it was akin to rolling a fumble and hitting an ally (well, a series of fumbles). Sure, the character might be a bit salty about it, but the player should recognize that the other player had no real control over the misfortune, hence no hard feelings in the real world. Everyone recognizes it was largely down to bad luck. Maybe the player made a less-than-ideal choice by shooting in the other character's direction, but that's a far cry from active sabotage.




These are all 3 thoughtful posts.  FrogReaver and prabe are both correct and a part of Fanaelialae's post is certainly correct.

However, there is more.  This each of these are parts of the whole.  Here are the other areas that hook into this whole thing.

I'll start with a very good post by Lanefan below because it addresses a core, conceptual difference here between Blades and Adventure Path D&D (despite the fact that a lot of D&D is a classic "heist game", like Blades):



Lanefan said:


> Where I see PvP (or more correctly PCvPC) as an occasional natural outgrowth of playing independent-thinking characters whose views, goals, ethics and tolerances don't necessarily agree, be that disagreement sometimes or all the time. And yes, sometimes it gets nasty; even murderous.




1)  Like Lanefan is talking in the post above, Blades is an EXTREMELY thematically aggressive game where the PCs are meant to advocate for their interests and the game and GM is meant to follow both the disparate interests of the PCs and the holistic interests of their Crew.  Adventure Path D&D reverses the poles on these relationships almost exactly.  Overwhelmingly, the game is about the thematics of the setting and the inertia of the metaplot (not the thematic dynamism of the PCs and the game/story emerging from that) and the GM does at least as much leading as s/he does following (if not much, much more leading).  The players know this.  The GMs know this.

2)  Following directly from the above, you're going to have an "AP player archetype" that is deeply acquainted with all of these relationships and likely has an orientation toward "correctly triggering the GM to trigger the metaplot and reveal the codified setting dynamics" with extreme vigor.  If you insert another player who has a different orientation (say, aggressively advocating for what they see as the thematic interests of their character or "pushing the candy red button to see what happens"), friction can arise.

3)  PCs can marshal many more resources for both success and for the mitigation of consequences (while quantitatively understanding how all of these resources intersect with the resolution mechanics and possibly get them in trouble later) in a game like Blades than in a game like D&D 5e.  As such, there is a position of confidence they experience that (nonspellcaster) D&D players do not when confronting noncombat obstacles specifically.

4)  Blades is player-facing and GM constraining in the extreme.  As such, the order of operations in play and the operations themselves are consistent and deeply understood at all moments of play.   5e D&D resolution of noncombat conflicts is overwhelming the opposite.  5e D&D actual social conflict is akin to a game of "Social Pictionary (SP)" mashed with "Wheel of Fortune (WoF)" with a mediator who may not perform adequately in either/both of the SP or WoF portions of their job from conflict to conflict.  Its a very loose game of decryption and puzzle solving.  Due to that looseness and the fact that PCs (one or all) could be dealing with a wobbly cipher now and again (or any/all participants could be dealing with various other states such as fatigue or waning attention span), a player in a 5e D&D game may feel very differently from moment to moment in how well they understand the implications/stakes/operational aspects of a social challenge or an exploration challenge.

Its made more difficult when a GM feels that they've done a good job in their SP or WoF roles, when in fact they may not have done as well as they think they have (or, because they carry with them the context of reading the actual module, they may think that pieces of the macro puzzle that they disseminate make senes, while, in fact, they don't and the GM is just dealing with the cognitive bias of having read the module).

There is an inherent vulnerability there that Blades players will fundamentally never experience.

Player:  "We're on 4 out of 6 of the Tug-of-War Clock to convince the Mad Baron that the militia doesn't trust him, his people hate him, his captain's allegiance is flagging and that he should leave town before a full-throated revolt ensues.  And he's just threatened to call his guard on us because Vildente manifested a Demon that read his mind and forced him to speak his deepest, darkest secrets aloud to his court.  Alright.  I stand completely relaxed at his threat.  He's clearly unsettled from the brief possession.  I don't address the Baron.  I look directly at the Captain of the Guard and say 'I know you've served this man for a decade and have some conflicted love for him despite his horrible rule...we promise that we're the best smugglers around...we'll get he and his family out of the city without a riot claiming their lives.'

GM:  "Sounds like Sway.  I'm not sure how the Captain would feel after the summoning of the demon.  I'm going to Disclaim this roll.  Someone roll a d6.  1-3 and Desperate Position, 4-5 and Risky, 6 and Controlled.  5?  Ok, Risky Position and Normal Effect.  If you get a 4-5 we'll tick the Tug-of-War Clock 1 with a Complication.  On a 6, the Clock will go to 6.  1-3 and back 2."

Quite different orientation in terms of opacity/transparency of mechanics, authority, the malleability of the fiction and its various imagined entities (the demon, the baron, the guard, the court, etc), and the players relationship to all of it.

I think that orientation and those relationships are all very key (along with what was written by the above posters) in unpacking why the different play experience (and the attendent feelings about it by the participants) emerges.


----------



## prabe

Lanefan said:


> Where I see PvP (or more correctly PCvPC) as an occasional natural outgrowth of playing independent-thinking characters whose views, goals, ethics and tolerances don't necessarily agree, be that disagreement sometimes or all the time. And yes, sometimes it gets nasty; even murderous.
> 
> Even more relevant is when one or more PCs might not be in the party by their own choice e.g. they've been ordered on to the mission by a higher authority, so there's resentment of that along with resentment of having to hang around with - and put up with - these other schlubs.




In my experience, PCvPC has inevitably degraded to PvP. Our experiences of this differ. I don't in principle have a huge problem with characters that have divergent goals, but in practice if the players/characters won't work together the campaign I find the going not worth the ride. Some players--some tables--clear are able to keep character conflict from turning into player conflict, but I've never seen it happen. Obviously, YMMV--and FWIW I don't doubt that your table might be one of those tables that make it work.




Lanefan said:


> This, I think, depends on one's personal and-or table's playstyle on the D&D side, particularly in pre-3e editions.  There, one can lean into a character's failings and strengths in whatever ratio one desires in order to end up with a fun character and a memorable time.
> 
> 3e and forward really tend to emphasize the strengths in characters and try hard to paper over (or mitigate, or outright remove) any failings.  This of course means failings won't be brought out as often, or as willingly, and IMO this is kind of sad.




I was thinking particularly of 5E, but I'll agree that more-recent editions do less to encourage players to accept their characters' failures and foibles than older editions did. I'm inclined to think that moving away from roll-in-order was the key difference.

Personally, I've experienced more than my fill of life going badly, and I can empathize with people not wanting to deal with that in a game. Horses for courses, and all-a-that.


----------



## Imaculata

Both the DM and the player can sometimes make the wrong call. But it's just a game. Just take a step back and discuss if the players want to proceed from the actions that were taken, or if they want to redo the scene. Most importantly, make sure that it doesn't happen again. So find out why the player did what he did, and if he meant to do so.


----------



## Numidius

prabe said:


> In my experience, PCvPC has inevitably degraded to PvP. Our experiences of this differ. I don't in principle have a huge problem with characters that have divergent goals, but in practice if the players/characters won't work together the campaign I find the going not worth the ride. Some players--some tables--clear are able to keep character conflict from turning into player conflict, but I've never seen it happen. Obviously, YMMV--and FWIW I don't doubt that your table might be one of those tables that make it work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking particularly of 5E, but I'll agree that more-recent editions do less to encourage players to accept their characters' failures and foibles than older editions did. I'm inclined to think that moving away from roll-in-order was the key difference.
> 
> Personally, I've experienced more than my fill of life going badly, and I can empathize with people not wanting to deal with that in a game. Horses for courses, and all-a-that.



Quite the opposite here. The memorable moments I have come from PC vs PC situations (when I did not GM). Sometimes a single pivotal confrontation that changed the course of events, some others an ongoing attrition of unconciliable attitudes with the occasional clash, or cross revenge. 
I consider myself a kind of dramatist type, but I usually had to confront with impulsive, chaotic, or even too rigid fellow players, I disagreed with, in-game. 
I


----------



## Fanaelialae

Numidius said:


> Quite the opposite here. The memorable moments I have come from PC vs PC situations (when I did not GM). Sometimes a single pivotal confrontation that changed the course of events, some others an ongoing attrition of unconciliable attitudes with the occasional clash, or cross revenge.
> I consider myself a kind of dramatist type, but I usually had to confront with impulsive, chaotic, or even too rigid fellow players, I disagreed with, in-game.
> I



I've had great moments of character conflict. But the ones I remember fondly were the ones where both players were on board with it. It didn't descend into player conflict. Anytime it resulted in player conflict, it is something I recall as being entirely negative. 

For example, in one campaign I was playing an apathetic, cynical monk in the same party as a Lawful Good paladin. The two characters were constantly butting heads. We had great fun roleplaying arguments the two had in between (and, to a lesser extent, occasionally during) games. Out of character we both knew that I was inevitably going to go along with whatever heroic adventure the paladin had in mind, and that the paladin player would make some reasonable concessions (coming up with a plan rather than rushing in blindly). But we had a lot of fun arguing from our character's point of view nonetheless. 

Contrast that with the aforementioned campaign where one of the players was jealous that my character had gained enough points in the reputation system to be group leader (even though I lead the group democratically). He tried to get my character killed and instead caused a TPK and ended the campaign. You better believe there were hard feelings over that, and not just from me. The other players were really angry with him as well. A repeated pattern of behavior along those lines is why we no longer game with that guy.

Conflict can be a lot of fun as long as everyone is on board with it. It can be extremely problematic when not everyone is.


----------



## iserith

pemerton said:


> The search function is not turning up the thread for me, but some time in 2018 (I think it was) there was an extensive thread about this very issue in which I believe you participated. Your reading of those rules is not the only one. In particular, some people - including regular 5e players - think that the reference under the Athletics skill entry (Basic PDF p 59) to "try[ing] to jump an unusually long distance" establishes a framework within which attempts to jump further than a PC's STR score might be resolved; and that the statement under the Movement heading (Basic PDF p 64) that "Your Strength determines how far you can jump" should be taken to be qualified with an adverb such as "usually" or "with certainty".






Maxperson said:


> That's not entirely accurate.  Strength(Athletics) allows PCs to try and jump an unusually long distance.  It doesn't give how far and with what DCs, so one DM might be like for every 5 you get on the check, you go 1 extra foot, and another might be for each number higher than 15 you roll, you go 1 extra foot or a number of other methods.
> 
> You get to go your strength distance with no roll(certain).  X extra feet possibly, depending on the roll and DM method(uncertain).  And no roll if the distance is simply not possible with Strength + max X(certain).




An ability check doesn't allow the character to jump an unusually long distance. An ability check doesn't exist in the fiction. A request to make an ability check is not an action declaration. A _task of some kind that is performed by the character_ (which the rules do not specify and must be described by the player and judged by the DM i.e. the "special circumstance" I mentioned in the post you both quoted) might allow for a character to jump an unusually long distance and a Strength (Athletics) check may be appropriate if the outcome of that task is uncertain and there is a meaningful consequence for failure. As with all other actions the players describe, including whether or not a Charisma check resolves an interaction with a baron, the DM still gets to decide what happens.


----------



## Maxperson

iserith said:


> An ability check doesn't allow the character to jump an unusually long distance. An ability check doesn't exist in the fiction. A request to make an ability check is not an action declaration. A _task of some kind that is performed by the character_ (which the rules do not specify and must be described by the player and judged by the DM i.e. the "special circumstance" I mentioned in the post you both quoted) might allow for a character to jump an unusually long distance and a Strength (Athletics) check may be appropriate if the outcome of that task is uncertain and there is a meaningful consequence for failure. As with all other actions the players describe, including whether or not a Charisma check resolves an interaction with a baron, the DM still gets to decide what happens.



Semantics.  Whether you try to jump unusually far and get a roll or no roll, an ability check is called for if the result is uncertain.  Given what the Athletics skill says, I doubt a DM is going to say yes to all usual(strength or less in distance) checks, and automatically no to even 1 more foot.  Aragorn isn't going to be limited to 20 feet or less with a 20 strength is my point.  He will be able to go unusually far(more than 20 feet) at least some of the time.


----------



## cmad1977

“I want to jump an unusually long distance over this gorge foresty gorge”
“How?”
“By running and jumping” 
“Ok, roll athletics”


Or 

...
“How?”
“By cutting down one of these trees and setting up a kind of ramp to get elevation and then jump.”
“Ok, you do it. It takes a bit but your plan works”


----------



## iserith

Maxperson said:


> Semantics.  Whether you try to jump unusually far and get a roll or no roll, an ability check is called for if the result is uncertain.  Given what the Athletics skill says, I doubt a DM is going to say yes to all usual(strength or less in distance) checks, and automatically no to even 1 more foot.  Aragorn isn't going to be limited to 20 feet or less with a 20 strength is my point.  He will be able to go unusually far(more than 20 feet) at least some of the time.




Doubt no more for that's how I rule. Some action declaration meaningfully different than running and jumping (and possible) or running and jumping combined with some special circumstance will be needed to get any further distance. Running at least 10 feet and jumping is just a running long jump which limits the PC to his or her Strength score in feet. Something else needs to be in play for the character to jump a great distance. "I try to jump harder than usual" just isn't going to work. Launching off that springboard might.

Whatever the case, my point was not about the specifics of jumping in D&D 5e, but rather pointing out again that the DM decides and the player is not entitled to make ability checks whether that's jumping or trying to influence the Baron.


----------



## Scott Christian

Lanefan said:


> So - self-censor?
> 
> At the least, those who self-censor wil end up frustrated and-or bored.
> 
> At the worst, if the change in scene represents a threat to the PCs that those players/PCs have realized while the talkers haven't, their declining to act could leave the PCs - all of 'em - in a world o' hurt.
> 
> In neither case is this good.




In the end, I think we can all agree it is about being respectful to other players. Players should allow other players to shine. That is how the entire infrastructure of character building. This guy is good at traps. This guy can take a lot of damage. This gal can deal massive damage. This gal can convince anyone of anything.

The issue is that some of these "shine" moments take longer than another. I always felt like that was one of the reasons for the shift of D&D's thief/rogue. The old rogue's shiny moments, even if plentifully added by the DM, are quick. The social part often takes a long time, as does combat. Sometimes, a player just needs to be patient. That, or find other solutions, such as split the party, involve yourself in the negotiations but as a side player, or add serious or funny commentary out of game. But, to always be the "talk is boring" or "this is taking too long" Leroy Jenkins of the group, is really just not allowing the other players to shine.

I mean, how many of you here have built a character specifically for a skill set? I have a drow arcane trickster/rogue now, who is almost 100% diplomat. All his skills. All his spells. And all his backstory revolve around that. If there was someone constantly ruining my diplomatic moments I would wonder why? It would be the same as if in every fight I tried to get the creature to run away or tried to convince the group not to fight. I am pretty sure the group would wonder why.

In short, it's a give and take style game. Almost all RPG's are.


----------



## Maxperson

iserith said:


> Doubt no more for that's how I rule. Some action declaration meaningfully different than running and jumping (and possible) or running and jumping combined with some special circumstance will be needed to get any further distance. Running at least 10 feet and jumping is just a running long jump which limits the PC to his or her Strength score in feet. Something else needs to be in play for the character to jump a great distance. "I try to jump harder than usual" just isn't going to work. Launching off that springboard might.




It's not so much "harder than usual," than it's jump without much effort.  Running and jumping as all athletes do to go 30 feet in an Olympics.  They use no springboard or any other aid.  Just run and jump.  They don't have 25-30 strengths.  

The jump your strength with no roll is just the number used when the PC is making no unusual effort, such as when using athletic ability to go farther.


----------



## Maxperson

cmad1977 said:


> “I want to jump an unusually long distance over this gorge foresty gorge”
> “How?”
> “By running and jumping”
> “Ok, roll athletics”
> 
> 
> Or
> 
> ...
> “How?”
> “By cutting down one of these trees and setting up a kind of ramp to get elevation and then jump.”
> “Ok, you do it. It takes a bit but your plan works”



They could use a ramp.  Or they could just try harder and go farther like Olympic athletes who just run and jump.  The base number of feet with no roll is just the distance they can go with little effort and no real use of their athletic ability.


----------



## jasper

ok, I am totally lost now. But I own the book. What village and what page is the mayor on?


----------



## Fanaelialae

jasper said:


> ok, I am totally lost now. But I own the book. What village and what page is the mayor on?



The town is on pg 95, and the description of the baron is on pg 105.


----------



## FrogReaver

Scott Christian said:


> In the end, I think we can all agree it is about being respectful to other players. Players should allow other players to shine. That is how the entire infrastructure of character building. This guy is good at traps. This guy can take a lot of damage. This gal can deal massive damage. This gal can convince anyone of anything.
> 
> The issue is that some of these "shine" moments take longer than another. I always felt like that was one of the reasons for the shift of D&D's thief/rogue. The old rogue's shiny moments, even if plentifully added by the DM, are quick. The social part often takes a long time, as does combat. Sometimes, a player just needs to be patient. That, or find other solutions, such as split the party, involve yourself in the negotiations but as a side player, or add serious or funny commentary out of game. But, to always be the "talk is boring" or "this is taking too long" Leroy Jenkins of the group, is really just not allowing the other players to shine.
> 
> I mean, how many of you here have built a character specifically for a skill set? I have a drow arcane trickster/rogue now, who is almost 100% diplomat. All his skills. All his spells. And all his backstory revolve around that. If there was someone constantly ruining my diplomatic moments I would wonder why? It would be the same as if in every fight I tried to get the creature to run away or tried to convince the group not to fight. I am pretty sure the group would wonder why.
> 
> In short, it's a give and take style game. Almost all RPG's are.




IMO.  The problem with Diplomancer players is that they insist that since they are the best at talking that they are the only ones who ever talk.  They do this because inevitably social encounters are ran such that PCs not adept in social skills are a detriment when they attempt to do anything.  That leads to feelings that anyone else doing anything in a social encounter is sabotaging their time to shine.  This is unlike every other pillar of the game.

Combat all characters are better off doing something than nothing.
Exploration, typically every character can find a way to help.  Lookout for danger, navigate, scout ahead, look for food, watch for traps, etc.
Social, basically anyone but the character with the highest social skills contributing is detrimental.

So I don't really blame diplomancer players for their sentiments, the entire game tends to get ran in such a way that their feelings are only natural.  I think instead maybe we focus on how the game can handle multiple players interacting in a social encounter without being a detriment.


----------



## Fanaelialae

FrogReaver said:


> IMO.  The problem with Diplomancer players is that they insist that since they are the best at talking that they are the only ones who ever talk.  They do this because inevitably social encounters are ran such that PCs not adept in social skills are a detriment when they attempt to do anything.  That leads to feelings that anyone else doing anything in a social encounter is sabotaging their time to shine.  This is unlike every other pillar of the game.
> 
> Combat all characters are better off doing something than nothing.
> Exploration there are moments all characters can contribute.
> Social, basically anyone but the character with the highest social skills contributing is detrimental.
> 
> So I don't really blame diplomancer players for their sentiments, the entire game tends to get ran in such a way that their feelings are only natural.  I think instead maybe we focus on how the game can handle multiple players interacting in a social encounter without being a detriment.



You can get around that pretty easily though. At my table, if multiple characters are talking to an NPC then at the time the check is called the DM will ask, "so who wants to lead the check?", but everyone's contributions affect the DC (which in some cases might admittedly be to the group's detriment, but that's simply because that character said something that hindered the effort).


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> IMO.  The problem with Diplomancer players is that they insist that since they are the best at talking that they are the only ones who ever talk.  They do this because inevitably social encounters are ran such that PCs not adept in social skills are a detriment when they attempt to do anything.  That leads to feelings that anyone else doing anything in a social encounter is sabotaging their time to shine.  This is unlike every other pillar of the game.
> 
> Combat all characters are better off doing something than nothing.
> Exploration, typically every character can find a way to help.  Lookout for danger, navigate, scout ahead, look for food, watch for traps, etc.
> Social, basically anyone but the character with the highest social skills contributing is detrimental.
> 
> So I don't really blame diplomancer players for their sentiments, the entire game tends to get ran in such a way that their feelings are only natural.  I think instead maybe we focus on how the game can handle multiple players interacting in a social encounter without being a detriment.




My approach is twofold. If the entire party is at the negotiation, I let all the players contribute to the conversation and ask the face-type to make the appropriate check. If there are party members who want to do something else, I let the party split, and I jump back and forth between the threads. I think it's easier to remain engaged at the table when you know you'll be doing what you want to be doing, soon (as opposed to trusting that there'll be an encounter or something later on that plays more to your style).


----------



## Scott Christian

FrogReaver said:


> IMO.  The problem with Diplomancer players is that they insist that since they are the best at talking that they are the only ones who ever talk.  They do this because inevitably social encounters are ran such that PCs not adept in social skills are a detriment when they attempt to do anything.  That leads to feelings that anyone else doing anything in a social encounter is sabotaging their time to shine.  This is unlike every other pillar of the game.



That is a great point. You are definitely correct. In the OP's case though, or cases where diplomacy is a pivotal point in the adventure, then it seems reasonable to have the non-diplomacy person take a back seat. They don't need to be out, but they take a back seat. Much like some classes do during combat. They participate, but they are not "shining." 

But I don't want that to sound counter to your point. I think you are spot on, and it was a perspective I haven't fully appreciated. Thanks for that.


----------



## FrogReaver

Fanaelialae said:


> You can get around that pretty easily though. At my table, if multiple characters are talking to an NPC then at the time the check is called the DM will ask, "so who wants to lead the check?", but everyone's contributions affect the DC (which in some cases might admittedly be to the group's detriment, but that's simply because that character said something that hindered the effort).




Right.  I'm not saying there aren't solutions, just that they don't normally arise on their own.  

I think your "solution" helps but doesn't completely solve the problem.  I mean you are still having a PC's actions be detrimental to the team and you still have the whole social encounters are puzzle mini-games where you must guess the right response to not hurt the team.  It's just no longer save or die which is an improvement.  In other words, the party would still have been better off if that PC had done nothing which tends to lead toward resentment, accusations of disruption and bad faith play.


----------



## Lanefan

Numidius said:


> Quite the opposite here. The memorable moments I have come from PC vs PC situations (when I did not GM).



Ditto here, both as DM and as player; and as player this includes some occasions when I was very much on the losing end. 



> Sometimes a single pivotal confrontation that changed the course of events, some others an ongoing attrition of unconciliable attitudes with the occasional clash, or cross revenge.



Ongoing rivalries can be fun too.


----------



## Lanefan

Fanaelialae said:


> I've had great moments of character conflict. But the ones I remember fondly were the ones where both players were on board with it. It didn't descend into player conflict. Anytime it resulted in player conflict, it is something I recall as being entirely negative.



Yes.  It has to stay in character.

One of the best was a situation early in my current campaign where the party had decided to sell some captured prisoners into slavery (one PC had 'slaver' as her past profession, so there was a certain line of logic there) except two PCs plotted to turn the rest in to the authorities as slavers (slavery is technically illegal where they were).

The local guards are quite open to bribery, so it ended up as a quiet bidding war between the snitch PCs (to arrest the slaver PCs) and the slaver PCs (to get the cops to turn a blind eye); and a lot of town guards got wealthy that night.

It finally ended when the slaver PCs tracked down the snitches, neutralized them, tied them up, and left a quiet note with their slaver contacts about a little gift they could find in location X - the two snitch PCs ended up as slaves.

Best part: this all took twice as long to play through as it probably should have because everyone at the table kept breaking out in gales of laughter!  And this was all entirely player-driven - all I had to do was referee, and play the role of a bunch of increasingly-happy town guards. 

(in case anyone's wondering, the party then went on to bust up the whole slaving operation [this was a variant of 1e's A-series modules] and in fact much later ended up rescuing one of the two 'snitch' PCs; the other was already known to have lucked into a pretty cushy slave gig as tutor to some rich guy's kids)


----------



## Fanaelialae

FrogReaver said:


> Right.  I'm not saying there aren't solutions, just that they don't normally arise on their own.
> 
> I think your "solution" helps but doesn't completely solve the problem.  I mean you are still having a PC's actions be detrimental to the team and you still have the whole social encounters are puzzle mini-games where you must guess the right response to not hurt the team.  It's just no longer save or die which is an improvement.  In other words, the party would still have been better off if that PC had done nothing which tends to lead toward resentment, accusations of disruption and bad faith play.



I'm not saying it solves the problem completely. If you have a hack and slash player and a diplomancer, it certainly won't help.

However, I'd say it's less about guessing the right response and more intuiting it. If the DM is forcing the players to guess without any hints to the NPCs personality, they're (IMO) doing it wrong. There should be explicit or implicit information as to what the NPC wants to hear.

The player can most certainly help as well as hinder. If you stroke the ego of the egomaniacal overlord, you're probably helping. If you insult him, you're probably hindering the effort. IME, it's typically a matter of using common sense basic social skills to avoid hindering the effort.


----------



## FrogReaver

Scott Christian said:


> That is a great point. You are definitely correct. In the OP's case though, or cases where diplomacy is a pivotal point in the adventure, then it seems reasonable to have the non-diplomacy person take a back seat. They don't need to be out, but they take a back seat. Much like some classes do during combat. They participate, but they are not "shining."
> 
> But I don't want that to sound counter to your point. I think you are spot on, and it was a perspective I haven't fully appreciated. Thanks for that.




Thanks,

I think the combat analog would be the enemy captain challenges your strongest to a 1v1 duel to settle the differences.  Now the rest of the players are sitting back watching and any meaningful action on their part could quickly undermine all the efforts of the PC engaged in the duel.  I think such a situation has a place, but it should be exceedingly rare.  I'm willing to say the same about analogous social encounters.

IMO there's a difference between simply shining and being the only one meaningfully participating.


----------



## Lanefan

Scott Christian said:


> In the end, I think we can all agree it is about being respectful to other players. Players should allow other players to shine. That is how the entire infrastructure of character building. This guy is good at traps. This guy can take a lot of damage. This gal can deal massive damage. This gal can convince anyone of anything.



This assumes each player wants to play one of those different types of character; which is by no means always the case.

Far more often two players want a Fighter and the other two want an arcane caster; and they end up recruiting NPCs to fill the lineup gaps.



> I mean, how many of you here have built a character specifically for a skill set? I have a drow arcane trickster/rogue now, who is almost 100% diplomat. All his skills. All his spells. And all his backstory revolve around that.



Even a character that finely specialized (which in general is something I'd steer away from on the meta-level) can still find ways to be involved the rest of the time; just as can others find ways to be involved in Face-y stuff.

And what if another player also wants to play a Face-type?  Is that to be denied just because you got there first? (I sure hope not!)



> If there was someone constantly ruining my diplomatic moments I would wonder why? It would be the same as if in every fight I tried to get the creature to run away or tried to convince the group not to fight. I am pretty sure the group would wonder why.



Or they'd just say "Ah, ignore him - it's just that silly diplomat again trying to be Picard when we'd rather be Kirk."  "No, wait, let him talk - he'll be a great distraction while we move in for the kill!"


----------



## Lanefan

FrogReaver said:


> I think your "solution" helps but doesn't completely solve the problem.  I mean you are still having a PC's actions be detrimental to the team



Sure you are.

Same as having a Fighter in clanky plate mail trying to sneak into the cave with an otherwise-stealthy party; or the Illusionist or Diplomancer faced with a bunch of mindless skeletons in a dungeon: anything that character does is probably going to be at best marginally helpful.  Doesn't mean that character should do nothing.

Sometimes a particular character just doesn't suit the here-and-now situation.  So what?  Have it do what it would do anyway, and see what happens.


----------



## FrogReaver

Fanaelialae said:


> I'm not saying it solves the problem completely. If you have a hack and slash player and a diplomancer, it certainly won't help.




Yea, I think we are on the same page there.



> However, I'd say it's less about guessing the right response and more intuiting it. If the DM is forcing the players to guess without any hints to the NPCs personality, they're (IMO) doing it wrong. There should be explicit or implicit information as to what the NPC wants to hear.




I apologize if guess had the wrong connotation.  I didn't mean to imply it was necessarily a completely information-less guess.  But, what I'm saying is this is the playstyle of treating NPC social interactions as puzzles.  Which is fine if your group enjoys that.  But for many of us such a style is lacking.  We dislike it because we feel it forces our PC's to do something they may not do in order to help with a social situation.  Which potentially leaves us basically 3 options, voluntarily sit out the encounter, do what our PC wouldn't do for the good of the group, or do what our PC would do and lose the social encounter for the team.  I get why option 3 in your playstyle would come across as bad faith.  I'm just coming at this from the position that if we are doing social encounters then they shouldn't put me as a player in that kind of unfun position to begin with.



> The player can most certainly help as well as hinder. If you stroke the ego of the egomaniacal overlord, you're probably helping. If you insult him, you're probably hindering the effort. IME, it's typically a matter of using common sense basic social skills to avoid hindering the effort.




See to me that reads: NPC social interactions are puzzles and you can typically solve them this way.  But the ultimate implication to me is clear: you can't play your character socially any way I don't agree with, because there is going to be hell to pay if you do.


----------



## Maxperson

FrogReaver said:


> IMO.  The problem with Diplomancer players is that they insist that since they are the best at talking that they are the only ones who ever talk.  They do this because inevitably social encounters are ran such that PCs not adept in social skills are a detriment when they attempt to do anything.  That leads to feelings that anyone else doing anything in a social encounter is sabotaging their time to shine.  This is unlike every other pillar of the game.




That's why I have my NPCs ask questions and speak to everyone.  Even if the players try to set up someone as the "Face," they will all have to talk and be involved in any rolls that may be called for.  Not everyone all the time, but enough that they generally don't bother to hold back when talking to NPCs anymore.


----------



## pemerton

FrogReaver said:


> 1 dimensional NPC's that have to be solved as a puzzle are always going to lead to situations like what we had here.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The DM chose the NPC reaction.  That's at the DMs feet.  You keep calling the player disruptive with nothing to support that notion - nor whether it was justifiable for him to be bored in the first place.



I fully agree with the second half of what I've quoted. And mostly agree with the first half - maybe _always_ is too strong if taken literally, but I think there are problems with "negotiation as puzzle-solving" in general, and especially if this is meant to require that the PCs cooperate with nasty people.



prabe said:


> If the Face is doing Face Things, don't interrupt, any more than you'd want someone to interrupt the Stealth Dude while he was doing Stealth Dude Things,  or the I Know That Guy while he's Knowing Things



To me, this only reinforces the issues with NPC-as-puzzle. It's being expressly equated to a problem for "face guy" as scouting out may be for "stealth guy" etc.

To me that is completely _unrealistic_. When the Riders of Rohan encounter Aragorn, GImli and Legolas chasing the orcs, Eomer addresses all of them. When Gandalf and Pippin arrive at Minas Tirith Denethor grills Pippin because he knows he can get more intelligence from him than from Gandalf. When Frodo and Sam speak to Faramir, Sam - though subordinate in rank -  interjects from time to time because there are things he wants to say.

In the Death Star, when Luke and Han encounter Princess Leia both speak to her. Earlier, in the discussion at Mos Eisley about hiring a ship, Ben, Luke, Han and Chewie all take part.

In some formal contexts it might make sense that only a herald or diplomat speaks, but apart from issues of realism that seems to make for relatively uninteresting game play. If a situation is to involve only one PC that seems to me like it should flow from the fiction - both the "plot" and the theme - and not from some notion of "face", "stealth", "combat" etc.


----------



## Fenris-77

Part of the problem there is lingering notions of niche protection and stat use maximization. Since activity X, social interaction in this case, has a mechanic that relies on a d20 roll that's individualized by player, there's a real incentive to let the character with the highest modifier do activity X. Not only is the mechanical advantage there, but the player has also devoted some design space to being good at X, so there's some impetus to let him have his hero moment. All of that makes perfect sense from a player facing perspective, and sometimes no sense at all from a fictional perspective. 

One way to manage this is to let everyone speak, but with the understanding that if a roll becomes necessary then the character with the highest mod can 'take the lead' (i.e. make the roll). At my table this would be barring any of the characters saying something potentially offensive or some such before that moment arrives.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> To me, this only reinforces the issues with NPC-as-puzzle. It's being expressly equated to a problem for "face guy" as scouting out may be for "stealth guy" etc.




To me, it reinforces the idea that the PC are working as a team. At a minimum "don't interfere with the Face Guy" could be taken as "don't insult the guy he's talking with." That is the core incident we were originally talking about.



pemerton said:


> To me that is completely _unrealistic_. When the Riders of Rohan encounter Aragorn, GImli and Legolas chasing the orcs, Eomer addresses all of them. When Gandalf and Pippin arrive at Minas Tirith Denethor grills Pippin because he knows he can get more intelligence from him than from Gandalf. When Frodo and Sam speak to Faramir, Sam - though subordinate in rank -  interjects from time to time because there are things he wants to say.
> 
> In the Death Star, when Luke and Han encounter Princess Leia both speak to her. Earlier, in the discussion at Mos Eisley about hiring a ship, Ben, Luke, Han and Chewie all take part.




And I'm pretty sure none of what happened in either instance is "interference." There are examples upthread how to handle this so no one is left out.



pemerton said:


> In some formal contexts it might make sense that only a herald or diplomat speaks, but apart from issues of realism that seems to make for relatively uninteresting game play. If a situation is to involve only one PC that seems to me like it should flow from the fiction - both the "plot" and the theme - and not from some notion of "face", "stealth", "combat" etc.




I don't entirely disagree with this, which is why I encourage the parties I GM for to split if there are different things they want to accomplish. If they don't, I don't hold asides against the party, but insults (which to be honest I don't remember having come up) would be a different matter.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> Part of the problem there is lingering notions of niche protection and stat use maximization. Since activity X, social interaction in this case, has a mechanic that relies on a d20 roll that's individualized by player, there's a real incentive to let the character with the highest modifier do activity X. Not only is the mechanical advantage there, but the player has also devoted some design space to being good at X, so there's some impetus to let him have his hero moment. All of that makes perfect sense from a player facing perspective, and sometimes no sense at all from a fictional perspective.
> 
> One way to manage this is to let everyone speak, but with the understanding that if a roll becomes necessary then the character with the highest mod can 'take the lead' (i.e. make the roll). At my table this would be barring any of the characters saying something potentially offensive or some such before that moment arrives.




Shockingly, that's not particularly different from how I do it--though I do a lot through roleplay and/or passive checks.

I'm not sure I'd consider niche protection in itself a problem, necessarily, though expectations around it might be.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> As far as everyone participating, I agree that's a fine ideal, but not every PC is going to be able to be helpful in every situation.



I think the word _helpful _is pretty fundamental here.

I talk with groups of people all the time - groups of students; groups of colleagues; groups of friends; etc. In those groups, normally some are more articulate than others. But they are not the only ones who speak. I have things I want to know from others (eg _What is it that you're finding hard about this example?_ or _What movie do you want to see?_). I have things I want to say to others, which prompt them to respond. They have ideas and knowledge and emotions that they want to express, so they speak.

It's striking to me that, in a thread about "realistic" consequences, a defender of those is putting forward such an unrealistic picture of human interactions.



FrogReaver said:


> The problem with Diplomancer players is that they insist that since they are the best at talking that they are the only ones who ever talk.  They do this because inevitably social encounters are ran such that PCs not adept in social skills are a detriment when they attempt to do anything.  That leads to feelings that anyone else doing anything in a social encounter is sabotaging their time to shine.  This is unlike every other pillar of the game.
> 
> Combat all characters are better off doing something than nothing.
> Exploration, typically every character can find a way to help.  Lookout for danger, navigate, scout ahead, look for food, watch for traps, etc.
> Social, basically anyone but the character with the highest social skills contributing is detrimental.
> 
> So I don't really blame diplomancer players for their sentiments, the entire game tends to get ran in such a way that their feelings are only natural.  I think instead maybe we focus on how the game can handle multiple players interacting in a social encounter without being a detriment.



The starting point is for the GM to think about the situation similarly to how s/he might think about a combat. For instance, why does the mad tyrant not address the barbarian or thief or whomever directly (as Eomer does to Gimili).

The next step is to think more carefully about how to adjudicate the resulting action declarations. In particular, if we take it as given that Gimli's player (ie the player of the relatively low-CHA dwarf) is more likely to fail a check than is Aragorn's player (whose paladin has at least 17 CHA!), how do we resolve this? In LotR Eomer still lends Gimli a horse, but there is an outstanding dispute between them about whether Galadriel is the most beautiful woman in Middle Earth.

Of course there are many many other ways to think about making sense of a failure in social interaction. I just point to that one because it's fairly fresh in my mind and it is the sort of thing that I don't hear much about in accounts of D&D play.

EDIT: And here we have Exhibits A and B:



Fanaelialae said:


> At my table, if multiple characters are talking to an NPC then at the time the check is called the DM will ask, "so who wants to lead the check?", but everyone's contributions affect the DC (which in some cases might admittedly be to the group's detriment, but that's simply because that character said something that hindered the effort).





prabe said:


> If the entire party is at the negotiation, I let all the players contribute to the conversation and ask the face-type to make the appropriate check.



This will never produce a situation in which Eomer lets the group go, and even lends them horses, but has a meaningful outstanding dispute with GImli. It flattens out all the fiction.

There are RPGing systems that do this for combat - eg Tunnels & Trolls - but D&D has never been one of them. Why flatten out social interaction when it is so easy not to. It's not as if D&D has never come up with an alternative approach that avoids such flattening out ie the skill challenge.


----------



## pemerton

FrogReaver said:


> I think the combat analog would be the enemy captain challenges your strongest to a 1v1 duel to settle the differences.  Now the rest of the players are sitting back watching and any meaningful action on their part could quickly undermine all the efforts of the PC engaged in the duel.  I think such a situation has a place, but it should be exceedingly rare.  I'm willing to say the same about analogous social encounters.



This is a fair analogy.



Fenris-77 said:


> Part of the problem there is lingering notions of niche protection and stat use maximization. Since activity X, social interaction in this case, has a mechanic that relies on a d20 roll that's individualized by player, there's a real incentive to let the character with the highest modifier do activity X. Not only is the mechanical advantage there, but the player has also devoted some design space to being good at X, so there's some impetus to let him have his hero moment. All of that makes perfect sense from a player facing perspective, and sometimes no sense at all from a fictional perspective.
> 
> One way to manage this is to let everyone speak, but with the understanding that if a roll becomes necessary then the character with the highest mod can 'take the lead' (i.e. make the roll). At my table this would be barring any of the characters saying something potentially offensive or some such before that moment arrives.



This is not going to permit dynamic social interaction. And it means that PC build choices around CHA and the like become reduced in signficance.



prabe said:


> To me, it reinforces the idea that the PC are working as a team. At a minimum "don't interfere with the Face Guy" could be taken as "don't insult the guy he's talking with." That is the core incident we were originally talking about.
> 
> And I'm pretty sure none of what happened in either instance is "interference."



In the passage from The Two Towers that I referred to, Gimili _does _insult Eomer: "You speak evil of that which is fair beyond the reach of your though, and only little wit can excuse you." When Eomer gets angry and threatens GImli, Legolas draws his bow and nocks an arrow "with hands that moved quicker than sight" and replies "You would die before your stroke fell."

Yet at the end of the scene Eomer lets the three go, contrary to a direct order he is under to detain them, and he lends them horses.

If a GM follows the approach to adjudication that you advocate, I don't see how such a sequence would ever be possible. Likewise if players follows your prescriptions.



Fanaelialae said:


> I'd say it's less about guessing the right response and more intuiting it. If the DM is forcing the players to guess without any hints to the NPCs personality, they're (IMO) doing it wrong. There should be explicit or implicit information as to what the NPC wants to hear.



This is still _NPC as puzzle_. With a pre-determined "right response" which the player are expected to infer from the GM's clues.

In my view this will only ever produce shallow social encounters, with no sense of depth to the characters and no sense of human reality in the events that unfold.

When Legolas, Gimil and Aragorn meet Eomer and his riders it is not a puzzle to be solved. It is a situation to be engaged. JRRT gives us one account of how it unfolded. Obviously we can imagine other possibilities. At a minimum, a FRPG social resolution system should be capable of emulating this sort of thing - the encounter of the heroes with a noble person who is torn between doing the right thing and loyalty to a misguided lord.

And D&D has actually had that resolution technology, even if it has subsequently laid it aside. It shouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility for 5e to handle this in some fashion.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I think the word _helpful _is pretty fundamental here.




Sure, though I was thinking more in am around-the-table gameplay sense than I think you think I was. To wit:



prabe said:


> As far as everyone participating, I agree that's a fine ideal, but not every PC is going to be able to be helpful in every situation. Having a character not do anything in a given scene isn't really any different from splitting the party, which at least one of my parties does often (and which I encourage, because in-fiction it means everyone is doing something, even if at-the-table that's not exactly the case).




It's not particularly uncommon for one character to do the talking, either because they're good at it or because they have some goal they're pursuing. There are some parties where everyone goes to every scene, because the players have learned the risks of splitting the party; my position is that letting a character be there idly isn't any different around the table than having that same player waiting for the metaphorical jump-cut to different story-thread.

As I said elsewhere:



prabe said:


> My approach is twofold. If the entire party is at the negotiation, I let all the players contribute to the conversation and ask the face-type to make the appropriate check. If there are party members who want to do something else, I let the party split, and I jump back and forth between the threads. I think it's easier to remain engaged at the table when you know you'll be doing what you want to be doing, soon (as opposed to trusting that there'll be an encounter or something later on that plays more to your style).




If a player was offered the opportunity for their character to be elsewhere, and they chose to be at the negotiation scene, they really really need to not screw things up for the players who wanted the negotiation scene, IMO. I might give the player a chance to step back from interfering, but as I've said elsewhere I've learned from experience that's not likely to happen.




pemerton said:


> I talk with groups of people all the time - groups of students; groups of colleagues; groups of friends; etc. In those groups, normally some are more articulate than others. But they are not the only ones who speak. I have things I want to know from others (eg _What is it that you're finding hard about this example?_ or _What movie do you want to see?_). I have things I want to say to others, which prompt them to respond. They have ideas and knowledge and emotions that they want to express, so they speak.




Right. And in-fiction conversations in a TRPG aren't really any more like real conversations than dialogue in fiction is. People really don't speak the way they do in fiction, in any medium.




pemerton said:


> It's striking to me that, in a thread about "realistic" consequences, a defender of those is putting forward such an unrealistic picture of human interactions.




I suspect that many people in this thread--including me--have been using "realism" and related words to talk about verisimilitude, which is not the same thing.




pemerton said:


> The starting point is for the GM to think about the situation similarly to how s/he might think about a combat. For instance, why does the mad tyrant not address the barbarian or thief or whomever directly (as Eomer does to Gimili).




That would be the way a GM in Fate (among other games) would approach it, yes, but D&D doesn't treat social situations as combat. Some of us prefer it this way, others prefer other systems; I don't think anyone is wrong, here.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> In the passage from The Two Towers that I referred to, Gimili _does _insult Eomer: "You speak evil of that which is fair beyond the reach of your though, and only little wit can excuse you." When Eomer gets angry and threatens GImli, Legolas draws his bow and nocks an arrow "with hands that moved quicker than sight" and replies "You would die before your stroke fell."
> 
> Yet at the end of the scene Eomer lets the three go, contrary to a direct order he is under to detain them, and he lends them horses.
> 
> If a GM follows the approach to adjudication that you advocate, I don't see how such a sequence would ever be possible. Likewise if players follows your prescriptions.




I tell you three times I tell you three times I tell you three times: Tolkien was not writing a TRPG campaign. Tolkien was not writing a TRPG campaign. Tolkien was not writing a TRPG campaign.


----------



## FrogReaver

pemerton said:


> I fully agree with the second half of what I've quoted. And mostly agree with the first half - maybe _always_ is too strong if taken literally, but I think there are problems with "negotiation as puzzle-solving" in general, and especially if this is meant to require that the PCs cooperate with nasty people.




Agreed.  Poor word choice on my part.  I didn't mean always in the sense that every instance where X happens Y will happen.  I meant always in the sense that as long as X is occurring we will not eliminate Y from occurring.


----------



## Fenris-77

pemerton said:


> This is not going to permit dynamic social interaction. And it means that PC build choices around CHA and the like become reduced in signficance.



Sure it can. I didn't say every single instance had to be run like that, nor did I say anything about actual adjudication of the actions, just that there are ways to get past groups who only ever let/want the highest CHA player to do all the talking because it means doing all the rolling (assuming that's the goal in the first place, which there was upstream). Moving to actual dynamic social interaction is sometimes best accomplished an series of small steps with some groups and play styles. Even in this model the high CHA player is still leading the interaction, but there's room for other players to be somewhat involved without thinking that they are risking the 'good' roll by doing so. 

I don't think just having the one high CHA player do all the talking, all the time, is particularly dynamic at the table.


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> I tell you three times I tell you three times I tell you three times: Tolkien was not writing a TRPG campaign. Tolkien was not writing a TRPG campaign. Tolkien was not writing a TRPG campaign.




I agree Tokien is not a TTRPG and particularly not one well suited for D&D style play.  The characters are just too disparate in abilities.  But IMO that criticism doesn't really apply to the social interactions in the story.  So I think the incapability of generating similar social interactions in a TTRPG (or playstlye) to Tolkien is a bit of a blackmark against any TTRPG or playstyle.  I mean if you find a style fun and it doesn't do that then that's fine.  But to me if I'm evaluating a TTRPG that's something I would highly value in one.


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> I agree Tokien is not a TTRPG and particularly not one well suited for D&D style play.  The characters are just too disparate in abilities.  But that criticism doesn't really apply to the social interactions in the story.  So I think the incapability of generating similar social interactions in a TTRPG (or playstlye) to Tolkien is a bit of a blackmark against any TTRPG or playstyle.  I mean if you find a style fun and it doesn't do that then that's fine.  But to me if I'm evaluating a TTRPG that's something I would highly value in one.




That's fair. As someone who is not a fan of Tolkien, I get a little cranky seeing LotR being held up as some sort of Platonic ideal of D&D gameplay. I suppose my unfandom means that if I'm trying to replicate those things, it's not because they're in Tolkien. Obviously, someone who is a fan of Tolkien would have a different outlook, here.


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> That's fair. As someone who is not a fan of Tolkien, I get a little cranky seeing LotR being held up as some sort of Platonic ideal of D&D gameplay. I suppose my unfandom means that if I'm trying to replicate those things, it's not because they're in Tolkien. Obviously, someone who is a fan of Tolkien would have a different outlook, here.




I'm curious, what would be your ideal fantasy adventure that a TTRPG should be able to handle elements from?


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> I'm curious, what would be your ideal fantasy adventure that a TTRPG should be able to handle elements from?




That's a fair question. I'm not in practice a huge fan of Fantasy as a genre; my favorite author who comes close to D&D is Pratchett, and to a large extent he's simultaneously writing Satire while taking the piss out of Fantasy. My attitude is kinda like Superheroes: I think there are awesome stories waiting to emerge in TRPG play in the genre, but much of the source material is crap (or at least has aspects that drive me up the wall, like recurring villains).

As I think about it, I realize that I can't think of a single piece of published fiction, at any length, that I want to replicate in a TRPG. I'm happiest, I think, when the story of a TRPG emerges from play, rather than is imposed by the GM (or a published adventure). The characters have goals, and they set out to attain them; the party work together in the attainment of those goals (probably in sequence, though I have a party that is working in an odd parallel). I mean, I like at least some of the usual suspects (Zelazny, Ellison, Donaldson) but there are others (Tolkien, Martin, Rowling) that I pretty much cannot abide. Looking at that list, it seems as though much of the Fantasy I like is pretty much the least like D&D, which seems as though it might mean something.

It's not as though novels or other media are never an influence or a source, though. I mean, I'll grab things from books and plop them into my campaigns: I dropped Calla from King's Dark Tower into one campaign (with a different mechanism behind it), and I grabbed the title of a pretty mediocre book and the Epiphany Machine is a creepy thing that now exists in my setting. Those are probably not exactly what you're asking about, though; I'm probably trying to prove that I crack the occasional non-gaming book 

Is that a suitable answer? If you were asking what elements I'd like to see included, that's a different answer.


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> As I think about it, I realize that I can't think of a single piece of published fiction, at any length, that I want to replicate in a TRPG. I'm happiest, I think, when the story of a TRPG emerges from play, rather than is imposed by the GM (or a published adventure).




Let me start here, because I don't think this is a fair critique of what I or anyone else is suggesting.  Everyone wants the story to emerge from play and not be imposed by the GM.  So what am I asking?  I am asking what elements from some of your favorite fiction should a TTRPG be capable of having emerge from playing it.  For me LORT-esque social interaction would be something that should be able to naturally emerge from playing the game.  Does that make more sense?


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> That's a fair question. I'm not in practice a huge fan of Fantasy as a genre; my favorite author who comes close to D&D is Pratchett, and to a large extent he's simultaneously writing Satire while taking the piss out of Fantasy. My attitude is kinda like Superheroes: I think there are awesome stories waiting to emerge in TRPG play in the genre, but much of the source material is crap (or at least has aspects that drive me up the wall, like recurring villains).




Thanks, I actually think D&D villians tend to get killed a bit to often. 



> The characters have goals, and they set out to attain them; the party work together in the attainment of those goals (probably in sequence, though I have a party that is working in an odd parallel). I mean, I like at least some of the usual suspects (Zelazny, Ellison, Donaldson) but there are others (Tolkien, Martin, Rowling) that I pretty much cannot abide. Looking at that list, it seems as though much of the Fantasy I like is pretty much the least like D&D, which seems as though it might mean something.




Interesting.



> It's not as though novels or other media are never an influence or a source, though. I mean, I'll grab things from books and plop them into my campaigns: I dropped Calla from King's Dark Tower into one campaign (with a different mechanism behind it), and I grabbed the title of a pretty mediocre book and the Epiphany Machine is a creepy thing that now exists in my setting. Those are probably not exactly what you're asking about, though; I'm probably trying to prove that I crack the occasional non-gaming book
> 
> Is that a suitable answer? If you were asking what elements I'd like to see included, that's a different answer.




Well, those are more setting pieces and such than what kind of emergent play you believe should be possible in a game.  For example as @pemerton has noted, LOTR-esque emergent social situations are not possible with the social encounter style that you are following.  Which is probably fine if you don't like LOTR, but what I'm trying to discover is whether your social encounter style actually allows for emerging social situations that resemble social situations in your favorite fictional works.


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> Let me start here, because I don't think this is a fair critique of what I or anyone else is suggesting.  Everyone wants the story to emerge from play and not be imposed by the GM.  So what am I asking?  I am asking what elements from some of your favorite fiction should a TTRPG be capable of having emerge from playing it.  For me LORT-esque social interaction would be something that should be able to naturally emerge from playing the game.  Does that make more sense?




I'm sorry. That looks as though I'm accusing all-a-y'all of railroading, and that's not my intent.

I'm actually pretty serious, though, that the published fiction I like best is ... not what I want to play in a TRPG. The pleasures I get from reading fiction are, now that I think about it, starkly different from the pleasures I get from TRPGs. I mean, yes, it's helpful to have read a lot, but I get more inspiration for TRPGs from something like The Devil in the White City or Krakatoa: The Day the World Exploded (and it's not as though I'd ever run PCs up against an analog of either H.H. Holmes or an EL-7+ eruption) than from any piece of fiction.

I swear I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just really strange.

Or maybe Protean. What I want, really, is what all the players want. If they want to banter as though they're in Eddings, go to it (though that's not my forte as a GM); if they want complex social interactions, I want that; if they want a heist, I want that (though, again, not really GMing to my strengths, and it'll probably look nothing like Leverage).


----------



## Fenris-77

If I had to pick an IP that I wanted a TTRPG to be able to handle the elements of social interaction out of it would be Scott Lynch's_ Gentlemen Bastards_ series.


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> I swear I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just really strange.




I don't feel like you are being difficult at all and definitely not intentionally so.  I tend to be fairly blunt so please don't take that bluntness as offense.


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> What I'm trying to discover is whether your social encounter style actually allows for emerging social situations that resemble social situations in your favorite fictional works.




I dunno if it's helpful, but I found a scene from (early in) one of my campaigns, from my wife's notes. The Dilyarli is a medusa reskinned as a cold fey. Taman's family were killed by one. Mo is a bard; other named folks are characters in the party. Yes, I botched the effect, the players and I have discussed that and decided it worked in-story.



> The cloud came up over the the riverbank toward the end of the house with the garden and the gates, all also on the bridge. We all moved toward that end of the house, so we saw the cloud come over the wall at the end of the bridge and into the garden.
> 
> When it entered the garden, it turned into a tall, elegantly dressed, very pale-skinned fey man wearing leather armor in black with blue trim. He was carrying a rapier and had a longbow on his back, but didn’t have it out.
> 
> We stepped outside the door of the mansion. Mo was about to greet the figure, but Taman spoke first: “Do you know me?” “No.” Then Taman decided to charge.
> 
> Taman’s decision to charge was slow in coming (John rolled at nat 1 for his initiative), so the party was able to talk to the dilyarli.
> 
> Orryk to the DIlyarli, Is there any way to end this night without bloodshed or death?
> Dilyarli: Yes.
> Orryk: What is the alternative?
> Dilyarli: The package must be delivered.
> Fiona said: The package has already been opened by the little girl.
> Dilyarli: She’s speaking Sylvan?
> Us (except Taman): Yes.
> Dilyarli, after thinking for a moment: Then she is now the package.
> Us: They didn’t know that. Can we have more time to get her in to the Administrator? She’s just a little girl.
> Dilyarli: I can give you until tomorrow night.
> Us (except Taman): Okay.
> 
> Mo tried to cast Hold Person on Taman, but Taman saved against it and charged the Dilyarli with sword out, ready to stab it. Except that thirty feet away from the Dilyarli he got turned to ice. Solid ice. An ice sculpture.
> 
> GM: He is wedding decor.
> 
> The Dilyarli turned back into a cloud and drifted away the way he’d come.




Hope that helps as far as how I handle social situations.


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> I'm sorry. That looks as though I'm accusing all-a-y'all of railroading, and that's not my intent.




No harm no foul!



> I'm actually pretty serious, though, that the published fiction I like best is ... not what I want to play in a TRPG.




I mean, I don't particularly care if I play through a LOTR inspired campaign even though I like LOTR.  So maybe we aren't so far apart there.  I still think there's a missing element to what i'm getting at that I'm not conveying very well and i'm not sure how else to convey it.



> The pleasures I get from reading fiction are, now that I think about it, starkly different from the pleasures I get from TRPGs. I mean, yes, it's helpful to have read a lot, but I get more inspiration for TRPGs from something like The Devil in the White City or Krakatoa: The Day the World Exploded (and it's not as though I'd ever run PCs up against an analog of either H.H. Holmes or an EL-7+ eruption) than from any piece of fiction.




I definitely agree with the first line but even in agreeing with that I still feel there's an important gap in what I'm trying to say with how you are responding.

Maybe approaching it this way would help.  Hypothetically, what if I was to tell you that your TTRPG was incapable of producing any kind of fiction, situation, social interaction, character etc, even remotely similar to any of the fiction you like.  Would you care about that?



> Or maybe Protean. What I want, really, is what all the players want. If they want to banter as though they're in Eddings, go to it (though that's not my forte as a GM); if they want complex social interactions, I want that; if they want a heist, I want that (though, again, not really GMing to my strengths, and it'll probably look nothing like Leverage).




Great response!  But I guess more of what I am asking is whether your TTRPG and the mechanics as you utilize them capable of producing banter as though your players are in the Eddings.  Is it capable of producing complex social interactions?  Is it capable of producing a heist like Leverage?

If not, is it the TTRPG itself, the particular way you use the mechanics or something else?


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> Maybe approaching it this way would help.  Hypothetically, what if I was to tell you that your TTRPG was incapable of producing any kind of fiction, situation, social interaction, character etc, even remotely similar to any of the fiction you like.  Would you care about that?




Erm. Maybe, maybe not. I played something like a dozen sessions of the Serenity game, and I knew nothing of (and didn't really care much for) the show. OTOH, I liked and trusted the GM and the other players, and the game was a hoot. So, I have played and enjoyed a game strictly limited to modeling specific fiction I didn't like. Seems like an answer.




FrogReaver said:


> Great response!  But I guess more of what I am asking is whether your TTRPG and the mechanics as you utilize them capable of producing banter as though your players are in the Eddings.  Is it capable of producing complex social interactions?  Is it capable of producing a heist like Leverage?
> 
> If not, is it the TTRPG itself, the particular way you use the mechanics or something else?




Banter? That's the table, not the game, IMO. I think it might be possible but difficult to run a heist in 5E, but I haven't tried. I know there are games written specifically to do heists, like Blades in the Dark, but I bounced *hard* off the SRD for that, so ... that's not an option for me to run.


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> Erm. Maybe, maybe not. I played something like a dozen sessions of the Serenity game, and I knew nothing of (and didn't really care much for) the show. OTOH, I liked and trusted the GM and the other players, and the game was a hoot. So, I have played and enjoyed a game strictly limited to modeling specific fiction I didn't like. Seems like an answer.




Just so we are clear...  Your answer is that you have no preference about whether the TTRPGs you play can support fiction and/or fictional elements from that fiction that you like?  Because that's an extraordinary answer if it's the case.


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> I dunno if it's helpful, but I found a scene from (early in) one of my campaigns, from my wife's notes. The Dilyarli is a medusa reskinned as a cold fey. Taman's family were killed by one. Mo is a bard; other named folks are characters in the party. Yes, I botched the effect, the players and I have discussed that and decided it worked in-story.
> 
> 
> 
> Hope that helps as far as how I handle social situations.




So I'm curious why the 1 person actually charged the creature after his allies had just negotiated a peaceful solution?

BTW, great play example.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> I'm pretty sure none of what happened in either instance is "interference."



In Str Wars Luke scoffs at Han's offer - "We could buy our own ship for that price" and then subsequently insults it when he sees it. And they argue over whether or not the Force is a genuine phenomenon. And when he leaves just before the attack on the Death Star Han is criticised. Yet he comes back to save Luke.

I don't see how this sort of dynamic - whether between PCs, or between PCs and NPCs - is meant to emerge in the NPC-as-puzzle and party-as-hydra approach.


----------



## FrogReaver

pemerton said:


> In Str Wars Luke scoffs at Han's offer - "We could buy our own ship for that price" and then subsequently insults it when he sees it. And they argue over whether or not the Force is a genuine phenomenon. And when he leaves just before the attack on the Death Star Han is criticised. Yet he comes back to save Luke.
> 
> I don't see how this sort of dynamic - whether between PCs, or between PCs and NPCs - is meant to emerge in the NPC-as-puzzle and party-as-hydra approach.




Sadly, I think that Han (an NPC) coming back to save Luke would break verisimilitude for most playing a TTRPG.


----------



## Numidius

FrogReaver said:


> Sadly, I think that Han (an NPC) coming back to save Luke would break verisimilitude for most playing a TTRPG.



I believe it depends on what kind of npc is Han, and who gets to "control" him via mechanics or fiat. D&D used to have henchmen, hirelings, mercenaries etc. Vampire allies, contacts, herd etc. Just to name a couple of games.


----------



## Imaculata

I'm wondering how I would have handled this social interaction with the Baron if it had come up in any of my campaigns. I've had lots of social encounters in my sessions as a DM. I always establish clear motivations and goals for an npc. The npc basically has wants, and do-not-wants. They have things they want to achieve, and things they are trying to avoid. And they have information that they may be willing or unwilling to share with the party.

During a social encounter, players can contribute if they want to. Generally no check is needed for that. It is only when the players are trying to convince the npc to move from his position, or to acquire information he is not willing to give up, that a check is required. The difficulty of that check is determined by whether the topic conflicts with the npc's wants or do-not-wants. If it does, the check will be higher. I generally try to keep checks reasonable, so that even players with low social skill have a chance of beating the DC. If a group of players is involved in the social encounter, I ask the players who of them wants to make the roll. This will usually be the face of the party; the one with the best social skills.

If my players had insulted the Baron, the face of the party would have to succeed on a high check to undo that damage. But drawing a weapon and making an attempt on the Baron's life? There's only so much a social check can reasonably do. At that point the Baron would order his men to kill the attacker, or to have him seized.

Of course, this does not have to be the end of that adventure. The players can resist arrest on the spot (either by trying to escape, or starting combat).  They can try to free their companions from jail, either covertly (a prison break, or a bribe), or by striking a deal with the Baron (quest hook).

This is provided that the player who attacked the Baron intends to continue play from this point. If he regrets his actions, I see no issue with rewinding and pretending it didn't happen.


----------



## Fanaelialae

FrogReaver said:


> Sadly, I think that Han (an NPC) coming back to save Luke would break verisimilitude for most playing a TTRPG.



I don't see why it would. Han's characterization belies someone who is outwardly selfish but deep down cares. He charges a dozen or so storm troopers on the Death Star to cover Luke and Leia's escape. That could have easily gotten him killed. He could have just shoved Leia at the troopers and run. There are clues throughout the movie that, at his core, Han isn't as uncaring as he likes to pretend he is. I don't see Han's rescue of Luke during his attack run on the Death Star as remotely verisimilitude breaking, and I find it strange that anyone would see it that way.

(As an aside, I'd say that Han would more likely be a PC. If anyone is an NPC it's Obi-wan, who incites the action of getting the party together, leaves to disable the tractor beam, and then dies.)


----------



## Fanaelialae

FrogReaver said:


> Yea, I think we are on the same page there.
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize if guess had the wrong connotation.  I didn't mean to imply it was necessarily a completely information-less guess.  But, what I'm saying is this is the playstyle of treating NPC social interactions as puzzles.  Which is fine if your group enjoys that.  But for many of us such a style is lacking.  We dislike it because we feel it forces our PC's to do something they may not do in order to help with a social situation.  Which potentially leaves us basically 3 options, voluntarily sit out the encounter, do what our PC wouldn't do for the good of the group, or do what our PC would do and lose the social encounter for the team.  I get why option 3 in your playstyle would come across as bad faith.  I'm just coming at this from the position that if we are doing social encounters then they shouldn't put me as a player in that kind of unfun position to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> See to me that reads: NPC social interactions are puzzles and you can typically solve them this way.  But the ultimate implication to me is clear: you can't play your character socially any way I don't agree with, because there is going to be hell to pay if you do.



I wanted to respond to that last paragraph. Otherwise, I agree that we're largely on the same page.

Let's say that you are out with a friend and you bump into that friend's boss, who is a massive egotistical jerk. You know that your friend has been gunning for a promotion because his wife is pregnant and they could really use the money. So your friend starts kissing up to the guy.

You can:
A) Stay out of the conversation and politely wait for your friend to finish.
B) Join the conversation and try to help your friend.
C) Tell the boss exactly what you think of him.

You might be bored if you pick A.

You might feel dirty if you choose B.

And, yeah, there might be hell to pay if you pick C. At the very least your friend is less likely to get that promotion and will probably be angry with you as a result. 

That's how it goes. What else would you expect?

Assuming you choose A or B, would you say that this means your friend isn't allowing you to be yourself? I think that's a real stretch. It's more that you are restraining yourself for the good of your friend, which is in your interest (presumably you are invested in your friend's welfare).

Now you might say that this is a game and that C should therefore have a chance of getting your friend the promotion. That's not unreasonable, 
and some tables probably do play that way. You can have your cake and eat it too. Not all tables though. Not my table. We prefer a certain degree of verisimilitude. 

Don't get me wrong, if there was something 
to suggest that approach could work then it would have a chance, but otherwise it's a bad idea (for obvious reasons). To expect otherwise would be like lighting a bonfire and expecting to pull a masterwork longbow from the ashes. You can't craft a bow by burning all your wood to ash, and you're not likely to see a positive social reaction from an NPC if you blatantly insult them. I mean, at some tables both of those might be permitted. Just not at my table. That's going a little too far for my group.


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> Just so we are clear...  Your answer is that you have no preference about whether the TTRPGs you play can support fiction and/or fictional elements from that fiction that you like?  Because that's an extraordinary answer if it's the case.




That certainly seems to be the case. I would definitely say the kinds of stories that come out of TRPG play are radically different that authors write, but that's not exactly answering the question you're asking, is it? I guess that the table is more a determining factor of whether I'll be happy with the fiction that emerges than the genre of fiction the game is setting out to emulate. Now that I have that thought, I realize there's probably a connection with how I feel about at-the-table behavior, though the direction of causality isn't clear from inside my head.


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> So I'm curious why the 1 person actually charged the creature after his allies had just negotiated a peaceful solution?
> 
> BTW, great play example.




Two reasons. One, his family had been killed by one (though not that one). Two, I think the player felt that he'd committed to the charge--that was why we dropped into inits--and that his character was motivated-enough by revenge that he'd behave that way.

I agree that's a neat play example. What's probably not clear from it, though, is that the first player to go--the one who initiated the negotiation--said a couple of things and then said he thought that was as much as he could say on his turn and passed it to the next character in the initiative. It was a spontaneous thing that resulted in multiple characters getting the opportunity to speak.


----------



## Scott Christian

pemerton said:


> I think the word _helpful _is pretty fundamental here.
> 
> I talk with groups of people all the time - groups of students; groups of colleagues; groups of friends; etc. In those groups, normally some are more articulate than others. But they are not the only ones who speak. I have things I want to know from others (eg _What is it that you're finding hard about this example?_ or _What movie do you want to see?_). I have things I want to say to others, which prompt them to respond. They have ideas and knowledge and emotions that they want to express, so they speak.
> 
> It's striking to me that, in a thread about "realistic" consequences, a defender of those is putting forward such an unrealistic picture of human interactions.




I think sometimes we imagine things differently than they really are. Sit in any group conversation: work, friends, large families. Record them. The closer they are, the more everyone talks. The less they all know each other, fewer people talk. Even in work conversations at lunch where people know each other well, you'll see three-four out of ten dominate the conversation. The others generally sit and listen or add a word here and there. 

And in the scene the OP was discussing: speaking to authority. In a real life situation where your friend whose driving gets pulled over, how often do his three passenger friends start piping in on the conversation. Generally only when he starts failing his persuasion checks. And even then, it's generally only one person. "Officer, what he's trying to say is that he has insurance, but he left the card at home." This same format often goes for speaking to bosses at a meeting (mostly because people just want to get out of the meeting ), and a group speaking to people they don't know. Ever see a group of 18 year-olds try to speak to a group of girls, 90% of the time they have a front man doing a lot of the talking.

So I don't think it's fair to declare an RPG dialogue to be any different. The OP didn't have the tyrant king address the barbarian because his shoes are muddy, or his hair isn't combed, or whatever. The barbarian can still speak, but he should allow the person who used his resources to use diplomacy to shine. The barbarian used his character resources to run fast, or take damage, or deal damage, etc. The diplomat doesn't always try to block his way every time he wants to run fast, or be on the front line, or deliver the killing blow. In fact, he helps him accomplish his goal. And that is what the barbarian should be doing; not just as a character, but as a player too. 

NOTE: I am talking about the OP's response. Not some simple conversation with a barkeep or random encounter. The OP's roleplay encounter was obviously important to the story. In other circumstances, let the barbarian thwart the diplomat all he wants. It will get old (maybe?). It is rude (to some?). But who cares? It can be the running gaga of the campaign. But for a pivotal moment, it's unfair for him to be bored.  

In short: We often replay conversations in our head as if they were one-on-one, even if they are in a large group. It's the way our mind works.


----------



## Scott Christian

pemerton said:


> In the passage from The Two Towers that I referred to, Gimili _does _insult Eomer: "You speak evil of that which is fair beyond the reach of your though, and only little wit can excuse you." When Eomer gets angry and threatens GImli, Legolas draws his bow and nocks an arrow "with hands that moved quicker than sight" and replies "You would die before your stroke fell."
> 
> Yet at the end of the scene Eomer lets the three go, contrary to a direct order he is under to detain them, and he lends them horses.
> 
> If a GM follows the approach to adjudication that you advocate, I don't see how such a sequence would ever be possible. Likewise if players follows your prescriptions.



This is not the scene the OP described. This is a random encounter that can help them or hurt them. The two loud-mouths had their say (literally one sentence), then the front man, with tons of charisma (and a name of influence, along with Gimili's name) spoke and explained what they were doing. Then, and only then, did the random encounter swing their way.

Meeting a tyrant is not a random encounter. Remember what happened to Pippin when he spoke out of turn to the mad Denethor? He stated his fealty, and in return, was forced (yes forced) to serve the steward. Since that is a book, we can do that. If it was D&D, the wizard would be casting spells to break him free. The two are different. But if we insist they are the same, that's okay too. Because he spoke out of turn at a pivotal moment, and voila - suffered a consequence.


----------



## Scott Christian

pemerton said:


> In Str Wars Luke scoffs at Han's offer - "We could buy our own ship for that price" and then subsequently insults it when he sees it. And they argue over whether or not the Force is a genuine phenomenon. And when he leaves just before the attack on the Death Star Han is criticised. Yet he comes back to save Luke.
> 
> I don't see how this sort of dynamic - whether between PCs, or between PCs and NPCs - is meant to emerge in the NPC-as-puzzle and party-as-hydra approach.



These are also players talking to one another. Not a scripted or close to scripted encounter with a pivotal NPC, who is run by the DM. Heck, at almost all tables I run or play on, characters talk this way to each other all the time.


----------



## jasper

Fanaelialae said:


> The town is on pg 95, and the description of the baron is on pg 105.



Ok Mayor V is a cheerleader thinking his circuses will make the town happy go lucky. And since will be a joy joy joy town, this will drive the evil away. But it not happening. He also a ruthless heel, blue blood or class snob, brittle ego who lashes out anyone who disrespects him.  (Okay I am mocking the write up.)
After reading the write up I don't need to make a social roll when someone tries to kill him. It is guards to the jail with the criminal low lives. Those low lives will be getting slob with out the roaches.  The trail may be fair depending on the players/pc response to the trial. BUT if found guilty off with their heads. Off board I would see if the players want to keep their low life criminals pc alive, or roll up new ones.  If alive jail break um as OP mention break them out the town square. Allies in town will depend on the Nice gentle people who know how to treat their betters (the free pcs) and how much fun I am having.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> I tell you three times I tell you three times I tell you three times: Tolkien was not writing a TRPG campaign. Tolkien was not writing a TRPG campaign. Tolkien was not writing a TRPG campaign.



So to be clear: you're saying that D&D 5e _can't _produce fiction that resembles the works the game is ostensibly inspired by, and that's a good thing?



FrogReaver said:


> For example as @pemerton has noted, LOTR-esque emergent social situations are not possible with the social encounter style that you are following.  Which is probably fine if you don't like LOTR, but what I'm trying to discover is whether your social encounter style actually allows for emerging social situations that resemble social situations in your favorite fictional works.



Another example would be Conan's befriending of Belit in REH's story Queen of the Black Coast.

I don't know the Fafhrd and Grey Mouser stories, but would be surprised if they don't have emergent social situations in which more is at work than the contrast of _insult _and _helpful_.



Imaculata said:


> If my players had insulted the Baron, the face of the party would have to succeed on a high check to undo that damage. But drawing a weapon and making an attempt on the Baron's life? There's only so much a social check can reasonably do. At that point the Baron would order his men to kill the attacker, or to have him seized.



And yet Conan and Belit become not only friends but lovers.

Or if one doesn't want the pulp tropes, I'll go back to LotR: between them Gimli and Legolas insult and threaten Eomer, and yet he lends them horses and they all go on to be friends and comrades-in-arms.

If 5e D&D can't produce fiction that resembles LotR, and can't produce fiction that resembles REH's Conan, what sort of fiction _can _it produce? What's an example of adventure fiction in which social interaction is all about "the face" doing his/her thing to press the right button to get the antagonist to do the desired thing, while no one else participates or ever has anything at stake? A certain sort of con/heist story? Anything else?


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> So to be clear: you're saying that D&D 5e _can't _produce fiction that resembles the works the game is ostensibly inspired by, and that's a good thing?




I am saying the stories that emerge from TRPG play are different than those that emerge from the minds of novelists. As @FrogReaver and I seem to have figured out, I don't appear to care at all if the fiction that emerges from TRPG play resembles what any author puts on any page (extending to other media/entertainment forms). There are enough things I don't like about much of the foundational literature that to the extent TRPG play doesn't produce them, *that's a good thing*.

More narrowly: The sorts of social interactions that authors write are different enough, at a level close to if not at the core, from the sorts of social interactions that play out around a TRPG table that I do not think *any* TRPG ruleset can replicate the social interactions from *any* source material. It is plausible that the players around a table can intentionally ape the interactions in LotR or Star Wars, but it's not necessary that they do so--and even if they did, the end results of four or five people ad-libbing dialogue around the table would be different from those of one author writing and rewriting and rewriting.


----------



## pemerton

Fanaelialae said:


> Let's say that you are out with a friend and you bump into that friend's boss, who is a massive egotistical jerk. You know that your friend has been gunning for a promotion because his wife is pregnant and they could really use the money. So your friend starts kissing up to the guy.
> 
> You can:
> A) Stay out of the conversation and politely wait for your friend to finish.
> B) Join the conversation and try to help your friend.
> C) Tell the boss exactly what you think of him.
> 
> You might be bored if you pick A.
> 
> You might feel dirty if you choose B.
> 
> And, yeah, there might be hell to pay if you pick C. At the very least your friend is less likely to get that promotion and will probably be angry with you as a result.
> 
> That's how it goes. What else would you expect?





Scott Christian said:


> In a real life situation where your friend whose driving gets pulled over, how often do his three passenger friends start piping in on the conversation. Generally only when he starts failing his persuasion checks. And even then, it's generally only one person. "Officer, what he's trying to say is that he has insurance, but he left the card at home." This same format often goes for speaking to bosses at a meeting (mostly because people just want to get out of the meeting ), and a group speaking to people they don't know. Ever see a group of 18 year-olds try to speak to a group of girls, 90% of the time they have a front man doing a lot of the talking.
> 
> So I don't think it's fair to declare an RPG dialogue to be any different.



Iin real life, if I'm attacked by orcs they win. And I've never inherited a magic heirloom either.

Why is my model for FRPG dialogue me? That's not my model for anything else in a RPG.

Why isn't it King Richard meeting and swapping gifts with Saladin's brother (to point to some real-world example of charismatic individuals). Or why isn't it Robert Downey Jr or Julian Moore or even Jack Black in a film? Just like my models for combat are Jet Li, the knights in Excalibur, and Wolverine.

In the example from Curse of Strahd, this is not a meeting between a boss and a downtrodden underling, or between a police officer and a hapless driver. The PCs are personalities in their own right, protagonists in a fantasy adventure, with prowess in arms or magic or both. The Mad Tyrant is among peers.



Scott Christian said:


> The barbarian can still speak, but he should allow the person who used his resources to use diplomacy to shine. The barbarian used his character resources to run fast, or take damage, or deal damage, etc. The diplomat doesn't always try to block his way every time he wants to run fast, or be on the front line, or deliver the killing blow.



Why can the barbarian not speak and contribute to the endeavour, if that's what that player wants to do?

Conversely, if the player of the diplomat doesn't want the barbarian to kill a particular NPC, isn't it his/her prerogative to have his/her PC do something about that?



Scott Christian said:


> I am talking about the OP's response. Not some simple conversation with a barkeep or random encounter. The OP's roleplay encounter was obviously important to the story.





Scott Christian said:


> Meeting a tyrant is not a random encounter.





Scott Christian said:


> These are also players talking to one another. Not a scripted or close to scripted encounter with a pivotal NPC, who is run by the DM.



Why is ths social encounter scripted? Is that how combats are meant to be run too?


----------



## Fenris-77

I think there are two different things on the table here. On the one hand we have dialogue, which, frankly, isn't and shouldn't be something that need mechanics to reproduce, either for PC-PC or PC-NPC situations. The thing that's really at issue is dialogue with intent, where there there is a particular desired outcome of the action in question, and that outcome is in some doubt. This is a sticky topic to use examples from books for, because in those cases the author generally knows what the outcome is and it isn't in doubt. This is made more difficult because two rational people can have very different views of what was actually going on in a given interaction. We only see the dialogue, not the actions declaration, which is what really indexes intent.

The example of Gimli and Legolas talking to Eomer is a great example. I have a very different reading of that exchange than some of the ones that have appeared upstream. The whole of LotR is very rooted in Saxon and Norse myth and culture, and the responses of both Legolas and Gimli in that exchange are 'heroic' in that they show Eomer something about the mettle of the two, a measure of their character as it were. Eomer is a warrior, and when he sees that both Legolas and Gimli are also warriors, that they adhere to something like the same code of conduct and speech acts, which in this case specifically does not brook insult, he sees them as worthy - hence the gift of horses. To model that in-game there would probably need to be a preexisiting understanding of the warrior ethos in question, and definitely a declaration of actions something like - _I am a warrior born and brook no insult, I will show this man that he must treat me with respect._ Without that culture of warrior boasts the exchange reads very differently. Modelling social interaction in LotR generally is hard for most TTRPGs because their base assumptions about the meaning of actions, and what matters in a given exchange, can be very different than model(s) Tolkien was working with.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> I think there are two different things on the table here. On the one hand we have dialogue, which, frankly, isn't and shouldn't be something that need mechanics to reproduce, either for PC-PC or PC-NPC situations. The thing that's really at issue is dialogue with intent, where there there is a particular desired outcome of the action in question, and that outcome is in some doubt. This is a sticky topic to use examples from books for, because in those cases the author generally knows what the outcome is and it isn't in doubt. This is made more difficult because two rational people can have very different views of what was actually going on in a given interaction. We only see the dialogue, not the actions declaration, which is what really indexes intent.




That's true. As I said, there's no TRPG system that leads to PCs bantering as though they're in Eddings. I do think that even getting to intents, though, the fact that all the characters in, e.g., a novel are emerging from one mind, whereas around a TRPG table they're emerging from several, will make a difference as to how dialogues go. If everyone around the table is on the same page, I don't think the system is really likely to matter all that much (except where the mechanics force differences).

I do not think that the models of social interaction in TRPGs map well to the models that novelists/playwrights use; I don't think either particularly maps well to reality (though both aim for verisimilitude).


----------



## Fanaelialae

pemerton said:


> Iin real life, if I'm attacked by orcs they win. And I've never inherited a magic heirloom either.
> 
> Why is my model for FRPG dialogue me? That's not my model for anything else in a RPG.
> 
> Why isn't it King Richard meeting and swapping gifts with Saladin's brother (to point to some real-world example of charismatic individuals). Or why isn't it Robert Downey Jr or Julian Moore or even Jack Black in a film? Just like my models for combat are Jet Li, the knights in Excalibur, and Wolverine.
> 
> In the example from Curse of Strahd, this is not a meeting between a boss and a downtrodden underling, or between a police officer and a hapless driver. The PCs are personalities in their own right, protagonists in a fantasy adventure, with prowess in arms or magic or both. The Mad Tyrant is among peers.
> 
> Why can the barbarian not speak and contribute to the endeavour, if that's what that player wants to do?
> 
> Conversely, if the player of the diplomat doesn't want the barbarian to kill a particular NPC, isn't it his/her prerogative to have his/her PC do something about that?
> 
> 
> 
> Why is ths social encounter scripted? Is that how combats are meant to be run too?



There's nothing wrong with running it that way. Maybe the mad tyrant does see the PCs as equals, and is willing to give them considerably more leeway than he otherwise would. 

There's nothing wrong with ruling that way, although the fact that the module says he runs them out of town if they anger him does suggest otherwise for the default way of handling it. The DM is always free to alter the module as they see fit. 

Additionally, you can absolutely have NPCs who respond poorly to praise and positively to insults. Maybe there's a surly pirate captain who hates sycophants but likes those who speak their mind.

It's simply that the egotistical baron isn't likely to be that kind of guy.

In a game a few months ago, one of the players tried to pick a fight with an NPC. She made a bet with him that ultimately resulted in her spitting a mouthful of beer in his face (intentionally). There was a bit of back and forth but he was unwilling to fight her as she has something of a reputation. Instead, he retaliated by putting nails through the tires of our truck. They went back and forth like this a few times until finally they called a truce and now they actually get along quite well.


----------



## Imaculata

pemerton said:


> And yet Conan and Belit become not only friends but lovers.
> 
> Or if one doesn't want the pulp tropes, I'll go back to LotR: between them Gimli and Legolas insult and threaten Eomer, and yet he lends them horses and they all go on to be friends and comrades-in-arms.




They do, but they are also entirely different characters from the Baron and this PC. I'm not saying that such a hostile act can't have a positive outcome in "a" campaign. But given the personality of the Baron specifically, that does not seem like a logical outcome. When you make an attempt on the life of a paranoid evil lord, he puts you in irons or has you executed.... probably both. That seems like the most logical outcome to me.

I think the more important point is, that this does not automatically mean the end of the player character. There are many ways to continue the story from this point.


----------



## billd91

pemerton said:


> The starting point is for the GM to think about the situation similarly to how s/he might think about a combat. For instance, why does the mad tyrant not address the barbarian or thief or whomever directly (as Eomer does to Gimili).
> 
> The next step is to think more carefully about how to adjudicate the resulting action declarations. In particular, if we take it as given that Gimli's player (ie the player of the relatively low-CHA dwarf) is more likely to fail a check than is Aragorn's player (whose paladin has at least 17 CHA!), how do we resolve this? In LotR Eomer still lends Gimli a horse, but there is an outstanding dispute between them about whether Galadriel is the most beautiful woman in Middle Earth.
> 
> Of course there are many many other ways to think about making sense of a failure in social interaction. I just point to that one because it's fairly fresh in my mind and it is the sort of thing that I don't hear much about in accounts of D&D play.




Well, if we're going to go with the Two Towers example, let's go all the way. Do you think things would likely have gone as well after Gimli insults Eomer and Legolas readies to shoot if either one had followed through and attacked Eomer? Or do you think Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Eomer, and several desperately needed riders would have all ended up dead? This is the difference between a character following up an insult with defusing the situation as Aragorn does and trying to take the burgomaster hostage as in the OP.


----------



## FrogReaver

Fenris-77 said:


> I think there are two different things on the table here. On the one hand we have dialogue, which, frankly, isn't and shouldn't be something that need mechanics to reproduce, either for PC-PC or PC-NPC situations. The thing that's really at issue is dialogue with intent, where there there is a particular desired outcome of the action in question, and that outcome is in some doubt. This is a sticky topic to use examples from books for, because in those cases the author generally knows what the outcome is and it isn't in doubt. This is made more difficult because two rational people can have very different views of what was actually going on in a given interaction. We only see the dialogue, not the actions declaration, which is what really indexes intent.
> 
> The example of Gimli and Legolas talking to Eomer is a great example. I have a very different reading of that exchange than some of the ones that have appeared upstream. The whole of LotR is very rooted in Saxon and Norse myth and culture, and the responses of both Legolas and Gimli in that exchange are 'heroic' in that they show Eomer something about the mettle of the two, a measure of their character as it were. Eomer is a warrior, and when he sees that both Legolas and Gimli are also warriors, that they adhere to something like the same code of conduct and speech acts, which in this case specifically does not brook insult, he sees them as worthy - hence the gift of horses. To model that in-game there would probably need to be a preexisiting understanding of the warrior ethos in question, and definitely a declaration of actions something like - _I am a warrior born and brook no insult, I will show this man that he must treat me with respect._ Without that culture of warrior boasts the exchange reads very differently. Modelling social interaction in LotR generally is hard for most TTRPGs because their base assumptions about the meaning of actions, and what matters in a given exchange, can be very different than model(s) Tolkien was working with.




this actually gives me hope that D&D can simulate the types of interactions you would find in its sources if inspiration. Why? Because you’ve just stated the reason is simply that DMs don’t run a world conforming to the same warrior boasting notions that LOTR is based upon. that’s an easy fix if that’s all there is to it.

I think there’s more to it though.  It’s not just about having an insult help in interactions with all or even some NPCs. It really has to do with the predetermined nature of such an insult I think. That’s why this notion of NPC as puzzle comes up so much - it’s such a key point to understand the criticism.

I don’t want social interactions where you can convince NPCs of anything. But I think a broader range of possibilities in social interaction are possible without opening those floodgates. In short, be willing to let the dice decide a bit more often in social situations.

I think more often than not a players conception of the social situation and the game and genre as a whole is perfectly valid and The dm too often dismisses that out of hand, especially in social situations.


----------



## FrogReaver

billd91 said:


> Well, if we're going to go with the Two Towers example, let's go all the way. Do you think things would likely have gone as well after Gimli insults Eomer and Legolas readies to shoot if either one had followed through and attacked Eomer? Or do you think Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Eomer, and several desperately needed riders would have all ended up dead? This is the difference between a character following up an insult with defusing the situation as Aragorn does and trying to take the burgomaster hostage as in the OP.




I don’t think anyone has an issue with the actions post attempted hostage taking. So not really sure what you are getting at.


----------



## Numidius

Just to point out that the family of the baron is also described in detail, the spiritually broken wife laughs hysterically at anything he says; their son is a self made magic user who wants to craft a way to teleport himself far away from the town, for good. 
So a lot of stuff going on.


----------



## FrogReaver

Imaculata said:


> They do, but they are also entirely different characters from the Baron and this PC. I'm not saying that such a hostile act can't have a positive outcome in "a" campaign. But given the personality of the Baron specifically, that does not seem like a logical outcome. When you make an attempt on the life of a paranoid evil lord, he puts you in irons or has you executed.... probably both. That seems like the most logical outcome to me.
> 
> I think the more important point is, that this does not automatically mean the end of the player character. There are many ways to continue the story from this point.




I think you’ve missed ALOT of the conversation. The issue isn’t around what he did after attempting to take him hostage. I’d say that bringing that up as part of your point actually undermines the rest of it because your talking about something the rest of us aren’t.

to make it clear: the issue with that scene was the calling of guards at a single insult by a single pc in an otherwise progressing social encounter.

that reaction done in that manner was the only unjustified action in the whole series of events.


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> I think there’s more to it though.  It’s not just about having an insult help in interactions with all or even some NPCs. It really has to do with the predetermined nature of such an insult I think. That’s why this notion of NPC as puzzle comes up so much - it’s such a key point to understand the criticism.




Are you saying that "don't insult the Mad Tyrant" is "NPC as puzzle?" Leaving out whether and how much foreshadowing and all-a-that; some GMs will do better at conveying those things than others, and some games have specific mechanics for the PCs to find out things about the NPCs while interacting with them (IIRC there's something in 5E, but I'm AFB at the moment).


----------



## Fenris-77

FrogReaver said:


> this actually gives me hope that D&D can simulate the types of interactions you would find in its sources if inspiration. Why? Because you’ve just stated the reason is simply that DMs don’t run a world conforming to the same warrior boasting notions that LOTR is based upon. that’s an easy fix if that’s all there is to it.
> 
> I think there’s more to it though.  It’s not just about having an insult help in interactions with all or even some NPCs. It really has to do with the predetermined nature of such an insult I think. That’s why this notion of NPC as puzzle comes up so much - it’s such a key point to understand the criticism.



No, it's not about having insults help, you're right. The insults in the LotR example are incidental to the actual point of the speech act/action declaration. A lot of games, most games maybe, take a modern set of values and indexes to speech acts and intent and then try use them to model more archaic modes of interaction, with predictably mediocre results in a lot of cases. Some games have specific instances where they escape this, for example there are lots of rule sets that give some weight to social status in social interaction, which you would imagine would be pretty key to a medieval or dark age era fantasy setting, but a lot of games give it no weight to it at all. You have a medieval culture in the fiction, with ostensibly medieval social interaction, but this isn't reflected in the mechanics for the game in the slightest.

This is where the mechanics come into play. Places where the rules try to model something that is different than the current cultural norms need either a mechanic or some guidelines for adjudication, or both. Insults are a great example. The response to an insult by someone with social standing in most eras really shouldn't be 2020 normal. You insult a knight, he's going to do something about it. Not only does that reflect actions and consequences, but it actually makes mechanics pretty easy to envision. It's the same with things of the sway, persuade, intimidate nature - some idea of what common reactions to those might be, how they might differ, and what sorts of things might constitute 'leverage' in a given society all provide handholds for play and adjudication, even with only minor mechanical support.


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> Are you saying that "don't insult the Mad Tyrant" is "NPC as puzzle?" Leaving out whether and how much foreshadowing and all-a-that; some GMs will do better at conveying those things than others, and some games have specific mechanics for the PCs to find out things about the NPCs while interacting with them (IIRC there's something in 5E, but I'm AFB at the moment).




Yes. Puzzles have foreshadowing and hints. Even when the hints are recognized and acted upon that doesn’t stop it from being a puzzle.


----------



## Fenris-77

FrogReaver said:


> Yes. Puzzles have foreshadowing and hints. Even when the hints are recognized and acted upon that doesn’t stop it from being a puzzle.



NPCs are a little like traps. They really should involve some telegraphing and foreshadowing, and they kinda suck when they're essentially a black box. Motivations and objections are key to social interaction, and I personally don't see the value in making the players constantly play 20 questions to figure them out.


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> Yes. Puzzles have foreshadowing and hints. Even when the hints are recognized and acted upon that doesn’t stop it from being a puzzle.




All right. I think that's at least part of the disconnect. I at least think of a puzzle as having at least one prepared solution, and I think human interactions are more nuanced than that (though I'll make notes about "if [NPC] is asked about [subject} ..." because I want the PCs to think to ask about that, at that point--maybe later on they can get that information without asking).

Looking back at the play example I posted, do you think the Dilyarli was a puzzle? (I realize you don't have all the information the PCs had.)


----------



## Maxperson

FrogReaver said:


> So I'm curious why the 1 person actually charged the creature after his allies had just negotiated a peaceful solution?
> 
> BTW, great play example.



I'm going to go with, "Taman's family were killed by one." as the reason.


----------



## Fanaelialae

FrogReaver said:


> Yes. Puzzles have foreshadowing and hints. Even when the hints are recognized and acted upon that doesn’t stop it from being a puzzle.



Plenty of things in the game can be viewed as a puzzle. 

A 30' gorge with your goal on the other side is a potential puzzle (how do we get to the other side of the gorge with the least risk). A puzzle isn't inherently bad, particularly in a game like D&D.

Even in the real world, one can look at social interaction as a puzzle to be solved. One guy might go up to a girl with the intent of figuring out how to get her to go on a date with him (puzzle). Another guy might just want to talk to her, and then asks her on a date when it turns out they have a lot in common. Those interactions might be indistinguishable to an outside observer. Whether puzzle or 'just talking', is really a matter of intent.

How do you think social encounters (where the goal is to get something out of the target) should be handled so as to not be a puzzle?


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> NPCs are a little like traps. They really should involve some telegraphing and foreshadowing, and they kinda suck when they're essentially a black box. Motivations and objections are key to social interaction, and I personally don't see the value in making the players constantly play 20 questions to figure them out.




Twenty Questions is almost certainly the wrong way. Something like Fate's mechanic to determine an NPC's Aspects isn't a horrible approach; I think allowing WIS (Insight) to understand an NPC might be valid in 5E (even if you're not bothering much with Bonds, Ideals, et al.). Foreknowledge in the form of allowing research or some form of foreshadowing is probably better, if the players remember it.


----------



## FrogReaver

Fenris-77 said:


> NPCs are a little like traps. They really should involve some telegraphing and foreshadowing, and they kinda suck when they're essentially a black box. Motivations and objections are key to social interaction, and I personally don't see the value in making the players constantly play 20 questions to figure them out.




well said. I would go a step further and this is probably one reason I’m not super fond of prewritten modules...

I think the NPCs should be ran in such a way that interacting with them will be fun for players that are playing to their PCs personalities. That may mean certain mad tyrant style NPCs aren’t a good fit to introduce into that campaign and that’s something I am okay with.

There’s too much a notion of this is my world and my NPCs and this is just how things are when it should be - how can I modify my world and these NPCs so that players playing these pcs will have a fun time.


----------



## Fanaelialae

FrogReaver said:


> well said. I would go a step further and this is probably one reason I’m not super fond of prewritten modules...
> 
> I think the NPCs should be ran in such a way that interacting with them will be fun for players that are playing to their PCs personalities. That may mean certain mad tyrant style NPCs aren’t a good fit to introduce into that campaign and that’s something I am okay with.
> 
> There’s too much a notion of this is my world and my NPCs and this is just how things are when it should be - how can I modify my world and these NPCs so that players playing these pcs will have a fun time.



Obviously, run the way you like, but I think that challenging the players is a good thing. If you've got a character who speaks his mind, don't constantly throw egotistical barons in his path, but there's nothing wrong with once in a while. Just like there's nothing wrong with putting a golem in the path of a caster heavy party to challenge them, though you wouldn't want to inundate them with magic immune enemies. 

Give them opportunities to shine, but also find ways to challenge them, IMO.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> NPCs are a little like traps. They really should involve some telegraphing and foreshadowing, and they kinda suck when they're essentially a black box. Motivations and objections are key to social interaction, and I personally don't see the value in making the players constantly play 20 questions to figure them out.






FrogReaver said:


> Yes. Puzzles have foreshadowing and hints. Even when the hints are recognized and acted upon that doesn’t stop it from being a puzzle.




For me it depends.  To me a puzzle is something to be figured out and the words "Mad Tyrant" alone are more than enough to tell you that you probably shouldn't be insulting this person.  There's nothing to figure out.  It's told to you by the name alone.  I just can't remember in this thread if it came up that the PCs were informed of this or not.

Now, if instead of being known as the Mad Tyrant he's just the Burgermeister and you have to pick up on his insanity and tyrannical methods via clues in his behavior and the behaviors of those around him, then sure, that would be a puzzle.


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> Twenty Questions is almost certainly the wrong way. Something like Fate's mechanic to determine an NPC's Aspects isn't a horrible approach; I think allowing WIS (Insight) to understand an NPC might be valid in 5E (even if you're not bothering much with Bonds, Ideals, et al.). Foreknowledge in the form of allowing research or some form of foreshadowing is probably better, if the players remember it.



Yep!  I agree.

DM: The Burgermeister enters the room.
Players out of character: We have to figure out what drives this guy in order to get to our goals.
Garick the Bard: "Sir, are your motivations bigger than a breadbox?"


----------



## prabe

Maxperson said:


> Yep!  I agree.
> 
> DM: The Burgermeister enters the room.
> Players out of character: We have to figure out what drives this guy in order to get to our goals.
> Garick the Bard: "Sir, are your motivations bigger than a breadbox?"




Shouldn't they have started with "Is your motivation an animal, a mineral, or a vegetable?"


----------



## FrogReaver

Fanaelialae said:


> Obviously, run the way you like, but I think that challenging the players is a good thing. If you've got a character who speaks his mind, don't constantly throw egotistical barons in his path, but there's nothing wrong with once in a while. Just like there's nothing wrong with putting a golem in the path of a caster heavy party to challenge them, though you wouldn't want to inundate them with magic immune enemies.
> 
> Give them opportunities to shine, but also find ways to challenge them, IMO.




maybe don’t accuse others of not wanting to challenge their PCs?

Overcoming challenge is fun. Placing an ancient dragon in the way of a level 1 pc isn’t a challenge, it’s an auto lose - a death sentence. Placing an insults everyone PC in front of a will never tolerate insults NPC is pretty much the same thing, it’s not a challenge, it’s an auto lose.


----------



## iserith

Since DMs don't read the DMG and, even if they do, they probably don't read or employ the social interaction rules (p. 244-245), it might be good to comment on what these rules tell us to do.

First, you set the NPC's starting attitude - friendly, indifferent, hostile. The NPC's attitude at the end of the conversation sets the limits as to what the NPC is going to be willing to do. DCs are provided in case what the PCs want has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure.

The PCs converse with the NPC. During this conversation, some PCs might be trying to influence the NPC's attitude to temporarily improve it. The DM meanwhile is portraying the NPC's agenda, ideal, bond, and flaw throughout the scene and presenting objections and other obstacles for the PCs to overcome as the conversation progresses. While some PCs do the talking, others might be trying to figure out the NPC's agenda, ideal, bond, or flaw so that it can be used to frame arguments in a way that is likely to get at the desired response. When the conversation has run its course, the PC's request, demand, or suggestion is judged by the DM and perhaps the dice.

So really, the best strategy here is to _pay attention_ to how the DM is portraying the NPC and put your higher Charisma characters up to talk to the NPCs while higher Wisdom characters (or those trained in Insight) try to suss out agenda, ideal, bond, and flaw. Then use what you suss out to frame arguments so that you automatically succeed or have advantage on Charisma checks. Get the NPC's attitude to friendly or as close as you can, then make your request, demand, or suggestion. Spend Inspiration if you need advantage on the resulting check, if there is one.

As I noted upthread, the Baron - unlike a lot of other NPCs in the module - has no ideal, bond, or flaw listed. But it can be derived from the information in the book. I would write those up accordingly and run this social interaction challenge with this structure in place. Maybe the players have to roll some dice and maybe they don't, depending on what they do, as with all other actions they may take in the game.


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> Placing an ancient dragon in the way of a level 1 pc isn’t a challenge, it’s an auto lose - a death sentence. Placing an insults everyone PC in front of a will never tolerate insults NPC is pretty much the same thing, it’s not a challenge, it’s an auto lose.




At some point I think it comes to player choices: If you're going to be playing in a setting where some nobles won't abide insults, maybe don't play an "insults everyone" character.

Also, it's a common position (and a reasonable one, if not exactly mine) that the setting exists outside the PCs, and they should expect to run into things they (at least) aren't optimized for. In that style of play, I wouldn't expect a GM to specifically not put something the PCs could not beat where the PCs could find it (though dropping it directly into their path would seem like dirty pool to me; I'll let anyone who plays that way correct me if I'm wrong).

Obviously, both of those things involve table expectations, Session Zero stuff, etc.


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> All right. I think that's at least part of the disconnect. I at least think of a puzzle as having at least one prepared solution, and I think human interactions are more nuanced than that (though I'll make notes about "if [NPC] is asked about [subject} ..." because I want the PCs to think to ask about that, at that point--maybe later on they can get that information without asking).
> 
> Looking back at the play example I posted, do you think the Dilyarli was a puzzle? (I realize you don't have all the information the PCs had.)




I don’t feel I have enough information to Really tell. Preliminary thoughts are yes but not particularly an overly rigid puzzle.  Of course maybe the word please would have triggered it into attacking the party in which case I’d have to change my opinion


----------



## Fanaelialae

FrogReaver said:


> maybe don’t accuse others of not wanting to challenge their PCs?
> 
> Overcoming challenge is fun. Placing an ancient dragon in the way of a level 1 pc isn’t a challenge, it’s an auto lose - a death sentence. Placing an insults everyone PC in front of a will never tolerate insults NPC is pretty much the same thing, it’s not a challenge, it’s an auto lose.



I wasn't accusing you of not wanting to challenge your PCs. I was saying that challenging a character's weak points can be a good thing as long as it's not overdone.

I disagree that it is auto failure. It's a challenge for the character to hold his tongue THIS ONE TIME. Not unlike a caster being confronted by a golem needs to figure out a different way of dealing with the threat than their go-to methods. It's not an auto-failure, but an opportunity to go outside their comfort zone. Admittedly, these sorts of challenges are more likely to result in failure because they target something that the character/party isn't adept at handling. So, yes, be prepared for the possibility of failure/complications (although I feel that goes for less difficult challenges as well, since it's always a possibility).


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> At some point I think it comes to player choices: If you're going to be playing in a setting where some nobles won't abide insults, maybe don't play an "insults everyone" character.




cant imagine this being knowable before the campaign starts. 



> Also, it's a common position (and a reasonable one, if not exactly mine) that the setting exists outside the PCs, and they should expect to run into things they (at least) aren't optimized for. In that style of play, I wouldn't expect a GM to specifically not put something the PCs could not beat where the PCs could find it (though dropping it directly into their path would seem like dirty pool to me; I'll let anyone who plays that way correct me if I'm wrong).




Why do y’all insinuate others only want to place things in front of their PCs that they are optimized to handle. Do you realize how unreasonable that sounds?



> Obviously, both of those things involve table expectations, Session Zero stuff, etc.




IMO. The DM can more easily change the unseen elements of the world around the players than they can change their character.


----------



## iserith

Yes, it's smart play to assess the challenge and put forward the strengths of the party while minimizing its weaknesses. I am for sure not going to save the party from themselves.


----------



## FrogReaver

Fanaelialae said:


> I wasn't accusing you of not wanting to challenge your PCs. I was saying that challenging a character's weak points can be a good thing as long as it's not overdone.
> 
> I disagree that it is auto failure. It's a challenge for the character to hold his tongue THIS ONE TIME. Not unlike a caster being confronted by a golem needs to figure out a different way of dealing with the threat than their go-to methods. It's not an auto-failure, but an opportunity to go outside their comfort zone. Admittedly, these sorts of challenges are more likely to result in failure because they target something that the character/party isn't adept at handling. So, yes, be prepared for the possibility of failure (although I feel that goes for less difficult challenges as well, since it's always a possibility).




holding your tongue isn’t an action. It’s doing nothing. A wizard confronted by a magic immune critter will not do nothing. There’s lots of other things for him to try.


----------



## Imaculata

FrogReaver said:


> to make it clear: the issue with that scene was the calling of guards at a single insult by a single pc in an otherwise progressing social encounter.
> 
> that reaction done in that manner was the only unjustified action in the whole series of events.




I wouldn't say it was entirely unjustified. The npc was not only rude, but also told him to his face that he was crazy AND unfit to rule. If the Baron really is crazy and kind of paranoid, then it makes sense that he would immediately have that player put in irons.

It is not how I would have ruled it though. Because it primes the situation for an escalation, which is exactly what happened. However, one of the players then chose to escalate the situation further by drawing a weapon. At that moment, their lives are forfeit.

I don't think it is wrong for a DM to present a social encounter where the players must walk on egg shells a bit, provided that it is foreshadowed and the players are aware they are walking on eggshells.


----------



## FrogReaver

iserith said:


> Yes, it's smart play to assess the challenge and put forward the strengths of the party while minimizing its weaknesses. I am for sure not going to save the party from themselves.




“Smart play” carries a bit of a connotation that everything is a puzzle or obstacle that can be overcome if you do just the right actions.

in such a game it would surely be“smart play” to hold your tongue. But that doesn’t mean it’s fun play.


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> Why do y’all insinuate others only want to place things in front of their PCs that they are optimized to handle. Do you realize how unreasonable that sounds?




I think some of us see this:



> Placing an ancient dragon in the way of a level 1 pc isn’t a challenge, it’s an auto lose - a death sentence. Placing an insults everyone PC in front of a will never tolerate insults NPC is pretty much the same thing, it’s not a challenge, it’s an auto lose.




as pointing in that direction, with the talk of "placing" things in front of the party. FWIW, I usually only prep a session-ish ahead of time, based on what the PCs look as though they're going to be doing, where they're going to be going, so pretty much everything they're encountering I'm putting in front of them (though I try to maintain verisimilitude). You might be reading my contrasting example as me insulting my own style of GMing (which is actually in my range, but I wasn't doing it here).


----------



## FrogReaver

Imaculata said:


> I wouldn't say it was entirely unjustified. The npc was not only rude, but also told him to his face that he was crazy AND unfit to rule. If the Baron really is crazy and kind of paranoid, then it makes sense that he would immediately have that player put in irons.
> 
> It is not how I would have ruled it though. Because it primes the situation for an escalation, which is exactly what happened. However, one of the players then chose to escalate the situation further by drawing a weapon. At that moment, their lives are forfeit.
> 
> I don't think it is wrong for a DM to present a social encounter where the players must walk on egg shells a bit, provided that it is foreshadowed and the players are aware they are walking on eggshells.




rehashed point:  fictionally any number of Baron responses make sense.  Game wise the calling of guards is a potential threat on pc life And potential life on the line escalation is the kind of escalation that should Not occur from a single insult.


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> I think some of us see this:
> 
> 
> 
> as pointing in that direction, with the talk of "placing" things in front of the party. FWIW, I usually only prep a session-ish ahead of time, based on what the PCs look as though they're going to be doing, where they're going to be going, so pretty much everything they're encountering I'm putting in front of them (though I try to maintain verisimilitude). You might be reading my contrasting example as me insulting my own style of GMing (which is actually in my range, but I wasn't doing it here).




not seeing how any of that makes my position into “only placing obstacles the PCs are optimized to handle in front of them”


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> not seeing how any of that makes my position into “only placing obstacles the PCs are optimized to handle in front of them”




When you talk about "not placing" auto-lose encounters in front of the PCs, it can sound as though you are customizing the encounters to suitably challenge the PCs (which I'd guess you're doing), which is at least near the other end of an axis with how some people describe sandboxes, where there are things around the PCs that can and will kill them more-or-less automatically. Someone who prefers that sandbox style of play (note: I don't, exactly) might describe "suitably challenging the PCs" as "placing obstacles in front of the PCs they're built to handle."

I kinda agree with @Fanaelialae above that putting the "insults everyone" character in a position where that is at least not a winning move isn't Bad GMing. *With some warning,* I don't even think it's Bad GMing if insulting the Mad Tyrant leads to his ordering Mr. Insulty's execution (though if I'm placing this in front of a party with Mr. Insulty in it, it probably takes more than one insult to do it, and the holding facility is likely to be at least somewhat porous, and the Mad Tyrant is not likely to be vital to the PCs' plans).


----------



## iserith

A player who creates a character that insults everyone regardless of the situation has made his or her own bed in my view and they're welcome to lay in it. I at least hope the player put that in as a Flaw for the character and earns Inspiration. Likely going to need it a lot.


----------



## Fanaelialae

FrogReaver said:


> holding your tongue isn’t an action. It’s doing nothing. A wizard confronted by a magic immune critter will not do nothing. There’s lots of other things for him to try.



The character might hold his tongue. The wizard might stand by and watch the more melee oriented party members (clerics, druids, etc) beat the golem down. Both if them have lots of other things they could try.

The rude character could _gasp_ try being polite. You could play it up as a comedic beat (he's terrible at it) or the character could prove surprisingly diplomatic when he tries to be. He could excuse himself to the privy and then go poke around for information that can help the party. He could glower menacingly at the baron when the baron tries to take advantage of the diplomancer's kindness, 'encouraging' him to rethink his words.

There are many possibilities, but if you assume the only possibility is auto failure then that is all you're likely to see.


----------



## Maxperson

FrogReaver said:


> cant imagine this being knowable before the campaign starts.




It's Ravenloft.  That alone says that you shouldn't be an insult happy PC.  Every other thing and its mother are nasty, evil beings that will eat your PCs liver for breakfast if you look at it wrong.  Maybe the player didn't know what kind of place Ravenloft is.  If not, that should have been explained prior to the beginning of the campaign, yes.  However, if the player was aware of the kind of place Ravenloft is, then the player was aware prior to character creation that an insult happy PC would be a bad idea.  

I'm currently running a Ravenloft campaign.  First campaign in about 20 years outside of the Forgotten Realms.  One of my players knew about the setting as he and I have been playing together since 1984.  The other 3 players got a session 0 general over view of what kind of place it was, even if I didn't give them all the details.


----------



## Maxperson

FrogReaver said:


> holding your tongue isn’t an action. It’s doing nothing. A wizard confronted by a magic immune critter will not do nothing. There’s lots of other things for him to try.



I disagree.  Holding your tongue is not doing nothing.  In this context, it's just not being your normal insulting self.  I'm a natural smart ass and I act that way in the vast majority of my interactions with people.  When things get serious, though, I can with some effort edit myself so that I'm not being a smart ass.  That's all that @Fanaelialae is saying here.  The PC should have edited himself, sort of like a golem edits the wizard PC through its natural ability, requiring the wizard to play a bit differently.


----------



## Maxperson

FrogReaver said:


> “Smart play” carries a bit of a connotation that everything is a puzzle or obstacle that can be overcome if you do just the right actions.
> 
> in such a game it would surely be“smart play” to hold your tongue. But that doesn’t mean it’s fun play.



I think "smart play" just says that there is a best way or a few best ways to play the situation out, not that everything can be overcome by it.  Sometimes the best way(smart play) just minimizes the damage of a bad situation, while dumb play(opposite of smart play I guess) will make it worse.


----------



## Numidius

FrogReaver said:


> well said. I would go a step further and this is probably one reason I’m not super fond of prewritten modules...
> 
> I think the NPCs should be ran in such a way that interacting with them will be fun for players that are playing to their PCs personalities. That may mean certain mad tyrant style NPCs aren’t a good fit to introduce into that campaign and that’s something I am okay with.
> 
> There’s too much a notion of this is my world and my NPCs and this is just how things are when it should be - how can I modify my world and these NPCs so that players playing these pcs will have a fun time.



And let's not forget Gm's also want to have fun. 
Me, at least. 
An impulsive action, a failed roll, are opportunities to bring on the entourage of the main npc and develop from there.


----------



## Manbearcat

This thread has moved along quite a bit.  I've read most of the intervening posts, but quoting everything that provoked thought would make for a mess.  So some thoughts:

1)  Scripted social conflict where the players' role (through their PCs) is tip-toe around and cater to/placate the unidimensionality of an NPC in order to access a "content/info dump" completely subverts any idea that the PCs are protoganists with thematic interests that should emerge through and propel play.  The only party with thematic interests that will emerge through and propel play in that model is the NPC!  They become the protagonist for the conflict!  If that is true (and I'm quite confident in that arithmetic), does anyone actually think that is a good model to follow for TTRPGing?  If you do and you agree with that assessment above, I'd love to hear why.

2)  Why would someone who writes an adventure EVER create a unidimensional NPC that must be dealt with in a very particular way? Even the most "paranoid strongmen" have nuance to them.  They have a person (perhaps a few) that they secretly respect beyond all others from which admonishment is actually meaningful.  They have regrets and shame that are buried away but are capable of being unlocked and brought to the fore.   They have deep fears that can be made manifest that can have them press the nuclear option (flee or suicide).  They have egos that are profoundly fragile and lacking resiliency such that a serious challenge and then a following through makes them question their autobiographical depiction of themselves in their heads.

Broadly in TTRPGing, I can think of many, many systems that can handle a hardened "paranoid strongman", retain the arrangement of "PCs as protagonists (and obstacles as antagonists)", whereby perhaps any combination of strongman changes/setting changes/one or more PCs change as a result of the PCs advocating for their thematic interests and the social conflict mechanics playing out to their conclusion. 

Why can't/doesn't a GM arrange this strongman's Ideal, Bond and Flaw with something like the below:

*Ideal *- The people recognize my efforts are for their own good and they love me for it.
*Bond *- I trust the Captain of my Guard more than anyone in the world; perhaps more than myself.
*Flaw *- Reactionary narcissist.

So (a) if you have a PC that does exactly what the PC does in this game (calls him out for being a tyrant unworthy of ruling this people) and (b) the player succeeds on his Charisma check, why can't literally all 3 of these IBFs manifest as a result?

* The NPC calls for his Captain to arrest this fool.  The Captain (who suddenly becomes the intersection of the PCs successful check, the Baron's Flaw, and the setting at large) pauses and says "...he says nothing different than what the people are saying in the safety and privacy of their homes sir...arresting him will not sanitize that image...it will further sully it."  After which, the Baron clearly shrinks and blanches while he gathers himself (after which the GM will either reframe the conflict with his next move from the Baron or another NPC present, or a player can make a follow-up move to reframe things).

* The player has changed the gamestate functionally (the players can now use IBF machinery to leverage action resolution success for the rest of the social conflict) and interestingly while expressing a thematic interest (maintained protagonism), the NPC has changed as a result, the setting has emerged through actual play.

Why is what happened in the lead post preferrable to the above?  For 5e D&D or any system?


----------



## hawkeyefan

FrogReaver said:


> well said. I would go a step further and this is probably one reason I’m not super fond of prewritten modules...
> 
> I think the NPCs should be ran in such a way that interacting with them will be fun for players that are playing to their PCs personalities. That may mean certain mad tyrant style NPCs aren’t a good fit to introduce into that campaign and that’s something I am okay with.
> 
> There’s too much a notion of this is my world and my NPCs and this is just how things are when it should be - how can I modify my world and these NPCs so that players playing these pcs will have a fun time.




I don't think I'd balk at introducing a NPC who may be hard to win over, or who may be easily provoked. But I think I'd do my best to 
(a) make it clear that this NPC may be hard to win over or easily provoked
(b) not consider it unfavorable if he's not won over or is provoked



Imaculata said:


> I wouldn't say it was entirely unjustified. The pc was not only rude, but also told him to his face that he was crazy AND unfit to rule. If the Baron really is crazy and kind of paranoid, then it makes sense that he would immediately have that player put in irons.
> 
> It is not how I would have ruled it though. Because it primes the situation for an escalation, which is exactly what happened. However, one of the players then chose to escalate the situation further by drawing a weapon. At that moment, their lives are forfeit.
> 
> I don't think it is wrong for a DM to present a social encounter where the players must walk on egg shells a bit, provided that it is foreshadowed and the players are aware they are walking on eggshells.




I think that there are two things that need to be considered here....the NPC's choice, and the GM's choice. The NPC may have a certain number of "acceptable" or "realistic" responses to any stimulus. The GM is the one responsible for choosing which of those to go with (or, alternatively, with following the process to determine the response per the game's resolution mechanics). 

I think that the GM needs to always be considering the experience at the table and how it is going for everyone, and then should make his choice accordingly. So if you know you have a player who prefers combat and you know that the last couple of sessions have not had combat, the only way you should have the NPC call "Guards!" when insulted is if you are perfectly happy with a fight breaking out. If the GM thinks a fight is a bad idea....whether because the NPCs are too strong for the PCs, or because there are two other players who are engaged with the way things have been going....then you should probably consider a different "realistic" response. 

I think you're right that it escalated things....and then they went even further. Which I think is fine in and of itself, but if other players are not happy, and hte GM is not happy, then I can't really stand by the decision to provoke that outcome.



Maxperson said:


> I disagree.  Holding your tongue is not doing nothing.  In this context, it's just not being your normal insulting self.  I'm a natural smart ass and I act that way in the vast majority of my interactions with people.  When things get serious, though, I can with some effort edit myself so that I'm not being a smart ass.  That's all that @Fanaelialae is saying here.  The PC should have edited himself, sort of like a golem edits the wizard PC through its natural ability, requiring the wizard to play a bit differently.




For the player, it's doing nothing. Whereas in the situation where the mage is watching the melee people fighting a golem, the mage can cast buffs, or spells that can indirectly affect the golem, and so on. When the rogue steps up to a trap, it's resolved quickly enough that no one else is sitting for long stretches with nothing to do.

A social interaction can potentially be long. For those who are engaged with it, that's not a problem....it's fun and engaging. For someone not engaged....it can be boring.

What always amazes me too, is how easily everyone but the face is uninvolved in the situation. Why would the NPC not question them all? Why would he not say something like "You, warrior....you've been silent through all this...what do you think?" Put that character on the spot. The fact that characters choose to have low CHA scores and other choices should in fact be a party weakness. Why shouldn't it come up? 

Otherwise, just Voltron the party into one gestalt PC with the best scores in every stat and call it a day.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Manbearcat said:


> This thread has moved along quite a bit.  I've read most of the intervening posts, but quoting everything that provoked thought would make for a mess.  So some thoughts:
> 
> 1)  Scripted social conflict where the players' role (through their PCs) is tip-toe around and cater to/placate the unidimensionality of an NPC in order to access a "content/info dump" completely subverts any idea that the PCs are protoganists with thematic interests that should emerge through and propel play.  The only party with thematic interests that will emerge through and propel play in that model is the NPC!  They become the protagonist for the conflict!  If that is true (and I'm quite confident in that arithmetic), does anyone actually think that is a good model to follow for TTRPGing?  If you do and you agree with that assessment above, I'd love to hear why.
> 
> 2)  Why would someone who writes an adventure EVER create a unidimensional NPC that must be dealt with in a very particular way? Even the most "paranoid strongmen" have nuance to them.  They have a person (perhaps a few) that they secretly respect beyond all others from which admonishment is actually meaningful.  They have regrets and shame that are buried away but are capable of being unlocked and brought to the fore.   They have deep fears that can be made manifest that can have them press the nuclear option (flee or suicide).  They have egos that are profoundly fragile and lacking resiliency such that a serious challenge and then a following through makes them question their autobiographical depiction of themselves in their heads.
> 
> Broadly in TTRPGing, I can think of many, many systems that can handle a hardened "paranoid strongman", retain the arrangement of "PCs as protagonists (and obstacles as antagonists)", whereby perhaps any combination of strongman changes/setting changes/one or more PCs change as a result of the PCs advocating for their thematic interests and the social conflict mechanics playing out to their conclusion.
> 
> Why can't/doesn't a GM arrange this strongman's Ideal, Bond and Flaw with something like the below:
> 
> *Ideal *- The people recognize my efforts are for their own good and they love me for it.
> *Bond *- I trust the Captain of my Guard more than anyone in the world; perhaps more than myself.
> *Flaw *- Reactionary narcissist.
> 
> So (a) if you have a PC that does exactly what the PC does in this game (calls him out for being a tyrant unworthy of ruling this people) and (b) the player succeeds on his Charisma check, why can't literally all 3 of these IBFs manifest as a result?
> 
> * The NPC calls for his Captain to arrest this fool.  The Captain (who suddenly becomes the intersection of the PCs successful check, the Baron's Flaw, and the setting at large) pauses and says "...he says nothing different than what the people are saying in the safety and privacy of their homes sir...arresting him will not sanitize that image...it will further sully it."  After which, the Baron clearly shrinks and blanches while he gathers himself (after which the GM will either reframe the conflict with his next move from the Baron or another NPC present, or a player can make a follow-up move to reframe things).
> 
> * The player has changed the gamestate functionally (the players can now use IBF machinery to leverage action resolution success for the rest of the social conflict) and interestingly while expressing a thematic interest (maintained protagonism), the NPC has changed as a result, the setting has emerged through actual play.
> 
> Why is what happened in the lead post preferrable to the above?  For 5e D&D or any system?



I think both are perfectly reasonable approaches. It will depend significantly on the table's style, but I don't think that either is inherently superior to the other.

That said, you feel that unidimensional NPCs are bad (I disagree that the baron is unidimensional, but I'll grant that he doesn't have the greatest depth). I agree with that sentiment but think that unidimensional PCs are as bad or worse (an NPC frequently has minimal screen time in terms of the campaign, whereas the PCs are typically center stage). Are you equally against unidimensional PCs? (I am referring to character such as the one who is always rude to everyone, that has been discussed recently in this thread.)


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> 1)  Scripted social conflict where the players' role (through their PCs) is tip-toe around and cater to/placate the unidimensionality of an NPC in order to access a "content/info dump" completely subverts any idea that the PCs are protoganists with thematic interests that should emerge through and propel play.  The only party with thematic interests that will emerge through and propel play in that model is the NPC!  They become the protagonist for the conflict!  If that is true (and I'm quite confident in that arithmetic), does anyone actually think that is a good model to follow for TTRPGing?  If you do and you agree with that assessment above, I'd love to hear why.




I'm not sure what thematic interest is served by interrupting a negotiation, but sure, you can remain the protagonist and insult the Mad Tyrant. Just don't complain when the consequence for doing so is unpleasant. Nothing about what happens needs to change that the PCs are the protagonists. The problem seemed as much as anything to be that it took the campaign far enough outside the published adventure that the OP didn't feel comfortable ad-libbing (mostly because of how that table games on VTT, as I understand it--I think maybe there weren't maps ready). Well, that and the players seemed to have different ideas of what their goals were at that point.




Manbearcat said:


> Why would someone who writes an adventure EVER create a unidimensional NPC that must be dealt with in a very particular way? Even the most "paranoid strongmen" have nuance to them.  They have a person (perhaps a few) that they secretly respect beyond all others from which admonishment is actually meaningful.  They have regrets and shame that are buried away but are capable of being unlocked and brought to the fore.   They have deep fears that can be made manifest that can have them press the nuclear option (flee or suicide).  They have egos that are profoundly fragile and lacking resiliency such that a serious challenge and then a following through makes them question their autobiographical depiction of themselves in their heads.




"Don't insult the Mad Tyrant" isn't so much "Deal with the Mad Tyrant in one particular way" as "When dealing with the Mad Tyrant, *don't do this.*" There seems to be some conflation of these two things, and there's nothing in your description of his potential personality that invalidates his reaction in the OP's specific case--weak leaders lash out, not strong ones, and IIRC he's specifically called out as weak.




Manbearcat said:


> Why can't/doesn't a GM arrange this strongman's Ideal, Bond and Flaw with something like the below:
> 
> *Ideal *- The people recognize my efforts are for their own good and they love me for it.
> *Bond *- I trust the Captain of my Guard more than anyone in the world; perhaps more than myself.
> *Flaw *- Reactionary narcissist.
> 
> So (a) if you have a PC that does exactly what the PC does in this game (calls him out for being a tyrant unworthy of ruling this people) and (b) the player succeeds on his Charisma check, why can't literally all 3 of these IBFs manifest as a result?
> 
> * The NPC calls for his Captain to arrest this fool.  The Captain (who suddenly becomes the intersection of the PCs successful check, the Baron's Flaw, and the setting at large) pauses and says "...he says nothing different than what the people are saying in the safety and privacy of their homes sir...arresting him will not sanitize that image...it will further sully it."  After which, the Baron clearly shrinks and blanches while he gathers himself (after which the GM will either reframe the conflict with his next move from the Baron or another NPC present, or a player can make a follow-up move to reframe things).
> 
> * The player has changed the gamestate functionally (the players can now use IBF machinery to leverage action resolution success for the rest of the social conflict) and interestingly while expressing a thematic interest (maintained protagonism), the NPC has changed as a result, the setting has emerged through actual play.
> 
> Why is what happened in the lead post preferrable to the above?  For 5e D&D or any system?




Huh. So, I suppose a DM could arrange those traits for the NPC. Maybe those fit the descriptions of the realm in the published material; if not, the environment would need re-writing to suit those (and I'll let that slide for the purposed of discussion).

The impression I got from the OP was that the CHA checks were related/directed to the Mad Tyrant, so we're getting even more counterfactual here by having it aimed at the Captain; but I'll play this game for the nonce. If the Captain is so much the focus of the Mad Tyrant's Bond, he seems as though he might need fleshing out the same way as the Mad Tyrant, and he needs to be the sort who'd earn the Mad Tyrant's trust, keep it, and not act out before now. It's at least as easy to write those so his Bond is, e.g., "An insult to my Lord is an insult to me" as anything else; maybe his Ideal is "I will do what I must to keep the peace between my Lord and the citizens" and his Flaw is "I keep my Lord's trust by keeping my silence." Now we have an NPC who'd be the sort of quiet sideman who'd be the focus of the Mad Tyrant's Bond, and keep his position and other wise fit into the setting as described. And by insulting the Mad Tyrant, the PCs have triggers the Captain's Bond, and made it much harder for them to persuade him not to arrest them.

See? Anyone can re-write the scenario to be anything.

In reality, what you've proposed isn't a bad way for things to go. I wonder how many NPCs a given player would have to insult into submission before someone started feeling the verisimilitude slip away, but that's a matter of taste. I kinda feel, though, that focusing so much on Ideals, Bonds, Flaws, and Traits kinda seems more like NPC as Puzzle than something more ... freeform, but it doesn't need to be that way in practice, I suspect.

What happened in the OP is preferable to your counterfactual if--and only if--the table wants "realistic" play and if--and only if--that's what they consider "realistic." Note that it doesn't seem as though the players felt the Burgermaster behaved unreasonably or unrealistically.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> What always amazes me too, is how easily everyone but the face is uninvolved in the situation. Why would the NPC not question them all? Why would he not say something like "You, warrior....you've been silent through all this...what do you think?" Put that character on the spot. The fact that characters choose to have low CHA scores and other choices should in fact be a party weakness. Why shouldn't it come up?
> 
> Otherwise, just Voltron the party into one gestalt PC with the best scores in every stat and call it a day.




This is a large part of the reason I don't penalize parties when they split to do different things, when they have reason to believe it's safe to do so. If there's a low-CHA character they can explicitly be off doing something else while this is happening (and I'll either get to them next, or I will have already at least started their thread).

Also, for verbifying Voltron, a round of applause.


----------



## Manbearcat

Fanaelialae said:


> I think both are perfectly reasonable approaches. It will depend significantly on the table's style, but I don't think that either is inherently superior to the other.
> 
> That said, you feel that unidimensional NPCs are bad (I disagree that the baron is unidimensional, but I'll grant that he doesn't have the greatest depth). I agree with that sentiment but think that unidimensional PCs are as bad or worse (an NPC frequently has minimal screen time in terms of the campaign, whereas the PCs are typically center stage). Are you equally against unidimensional PCs? (I am referring to character such as the one who is always rude to everyone, that has been discussed recently in this thread.)




The only game I run where PCs are thematically neutral and unidimensional is Moldvay Basic D&D. But that game makes no bones about its challenge-based, pawn stance orientation toward play where the exclusive play priority is getting as much stuff as you can out of a dungeon before your loadout falters. Here PC unidimensionality is a feature, not a bug.

Outside of that, It’s basically impossible to create unidimensional PCs (and/or play them as such) in the other games I run so it’s not a concern that I have had to bear out.

Here is where I often see unidimensional PCs emerge:

* D&D games where multiple dominant play priorities/paradigms converge and simultaneously threaten the integrity of each other:

1) Challenge-based.

2) “Realism” (often this is GM Simulation)-based.

3)  PCs are advertised as protagonists (the thing whose dramatic need is advocated for, expressed through play,  and ultimately changes; amplifies, degrades, or morphs).

4)  When actually the setting is already encoded as the protagonist before play has even begun and it becomes abundantly clear as play progresses.


What happens?

Players go into the game wanting to overcome obstacles with their built PCs.

Players may also want to express and propagate some dramatic need and attendant arc.

That need and arc become second fiddle (background color to the settings prptagonism) if they manifest at all. This can happen through moments of GM Force subverting a player trying to project their will onto the fiction. This can come from players trying to change the gamestate posotively in a noncombat situation but perceiving that they’ve been fouled (and will yet be foiled in the future) by a GM misappropriating the trajectory of play due to inconsistent or uninferrable mediation of mostly/wholly GM-facing resolution procedures.

Invariably, the player falls back entirely on (a) challenge-based priorities centered around combat (b) which are consistent and inferrable because they’re player-facing and easily actionable by just escalating to violence.

All that has to be done to prevent this degeneration (insofar as someone doesn’t intend for this to occur as a product of play) is change the orientation of play (priorities, relationships, resolution procedures/mechanics).


----------



## Fenris-77

Hmm. I'm just going to toss this out there - Ideal, Bonds and Flaws are a weak spot in the 5e rules IMO. I find the basic system toothless and inconsequential, and I think that their only tangential relationship to NPC motivations in the moment make them less that ideal tools for social interaction. Every time I have to abstract from an ideal to what to do in this case for an NPC that's a step I don't want to have to make. It's probably not terrible for big screen time NPCs that are fully fleshed out, but for bit players it's way more abstract than I find useful. YMMV of course. I don't use it at all in my campaigns.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> Hmm. I'm just going to toss this out there - Ideal, Bonds and Flaws are a weak spot in the 5e rules IMO. I find the basic system toothless and inconsequential, and I think that their only tangential relationship to NPC motivations in the moment make them less that ideal tools for social interaction. Every time I have to abstract from an ideal to what to do in this case for an NPC that's a step I don't want to have to make. It's probably not terrible for big screen time NPCs that are fully fleshed out, but for bit players it's way more abstract than I find useful. YMMV of course. I don't use it at all in my campaigns.




We've talked (typed--whatever) about this before (or maybe Inspiration, which is adjacent and similarly weak and something else I don't bother with) and I absolutely agree. I tell players flat-out that as far as I'm concerned those are tools for the players, not the DM. I try to have an idea of a given NPC that's more detailed and more nuanced than that; I don't think I've ever used those words in my notes for an NPC.


----------



## Manbearcat

Fenris-77 said:


> Hmm. I'm just going to toss this out there - Ideal, Bonds and Flaws are a weak spot in the 5e rules IMO. I find the basic system toothless and inconsequential, and I think that their only tangential relationship to NPC motivations in the moment make them less that ideal tools for social interaction. Every time I have to abstract from an ideal to what to do in this case for an NPC that's a step I don't want to have to make. It's probably not terrible for big screen time NPCs that are fully fleshed out, but for bit players it's way more abstract than I find useful. YMMV of course. I don't use it at all in my campaigns.




I don't disagree with your take here.  However, I simultaneously find them on 5e D&D's top 3 list (along with Background Traits and Lair Actions).  So (if that is on my top 3 while agreeing that its not particularly compelling conflict resolution archetecture), that should tell you why I don't run 5e D&D unless I'm forced to stand-in for a few weeks for a fatigued GM.

That being said, if I'm forced to choose between the somewhat player-facing/somewhat structured (both in terms of GM mental workspace and actual play) nature of the Social Interaction mechanics of 5e D&D + their Social Pantomime meets Wheel of Fortune nature (which isn't terrible) vs something entirely GM-facing and entirely lacking structure (and therefore potentially prone to all of the dynamics inherent to that model)...I'm going to choose the former.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> For the player, it's doing nothing. Whereas in the situation where the mage is watching the melee people fighting a golem, the mage can cast buffs, or spells that can indirectly affect the golem, and so on. When the rogue steps up to a trap, it's resolved quickly enough that no one else is sitting for long stretches with nothing to do.




Are you suggesting that the PC can do nothing but hurl insults at people?  If so, that sounds a bit........more than a bit one dimensional as a character.  If the PC isn't so incredibly one dimensional, then he will in fact be able to do something.  Lots of somethings.  Like, engage in the conversation in many different non-insulting ways.



> A social interaction can potentially be long. For those who are engaged with it, that's not a problem....it's fun and engaging. For someone not engaged....it can be boring.




It can be, sure.  However, if the only way a player can become engaged in a social situation is through insults, the problem is with the player and not the social interaction.  That's a player that will cause the party and other players a lot of grief in social situations, which is a significant pillar of the game.



> What always amazes me too, is how easily everyone but the face is uninvolved in the situation. Why would the NPC not question them all? Why would he not say something like "You, warrior....you've been silent through all this...what do you think?" Put that character on the spot. The fact that characters choose to have low CHA scores and other choices should in fact be a party weakness. Why shouldn't it come up?




I agree and said so above.  I do just that.  My NPCs talk to different members of the party.  I don't care if the Paladin is the social character in the party, if the NPC is having an issue with arcane wizardry, he's talking to the book Wormish wizard and not the Paladin.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> This is a large part of the reason I don't penalize parties when they split to do different things, when they have reason to believe it's safe to do so. If there's a low-CHA character they can explicitly be off doing something else while this is happening (and I'll either get to them next, or I will have already at least started their thread).
> 
> Also, for verbifying Voltron, a round of applause.




Having the party pursue multiple tasks is one way to address this, sure. I don't know if it's always possible, though. In a case where a local lord may have summoned them, or may have agreed to an audience with them at their request, the lord may expect them all to attend. There are also any number of additional reasons we can imagine on why they may all have to stick together.


----------



## Numidius

Manbearcat said:


> Why would someone who writes an adventure EVER create a unidimensional NPC that must be dealt with in a very particular way?




Actually, after giving a look at the pages describing the town, I find the whole encounter quite interesting and unusual. The baron might look monolithic, but is not, IMO, in his conduct of firm leadership thru forced happiness, festivals and prohibition of certain behaviours. Also, as I said, his close family is strange enough to create hooks and unforeseen triangles. And then guards, executioner and the rest of the town folks...


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> Having the party pursue multiple tasks is one way to address this, sure. I don't know if it's always possible, though. In a case where a local lord may have summoned them, or may have agreed to an audience with them at their request, the lord may expect them all to attend. There are also any number of additional reasons we can imagine on why they may all have to stick together.




Sure. In instances when the a party has all been dealing with someone like that, it's usually been because all the party wanted to be there--and I've let the PCs who wanted to speak, speak, and not beaten up on someone for having a low CHA. So far, no one has tried insulting their way to social success, so I haven't had to deal with this precise problem.


----------



## Manbearcat

Numidius said:


> Actually, after giving a look at the pages describing the town, I find the whole encounter quite interesting and unusual. The baron might look monolithic, but is not, IMO, in his conduct of firm leadership thru forced happiness, festivals and prohibition of certain behaviours. Also, as I said, his close family is strange enough to create hooks and unforeseen triangles. And then guards, executioner and the rest of the town folks...




Then this could be a case of a GM's "realistic consequences" take not incorporating all of the potential complexities of the situation even as the module attempts to convey them.  I don't know.

What I do know is this.  If I'm giving any GM who is in the position where they're looking for answers about how to make play work when it appears to have run afoul because of competing priorities in an instance of play (and presumably its not just an instance of talking to a player to resolve an issue with lack of sincerity/decorum...because, again, why are we bringing that to ENWorld if its just that simple), I'm not giving them the George Lakoff Strict Father model that seems to undergird so many classical viking-hat GM approaches to D&D.

I'm giving them the broad and system-specific (in this case 5e D&D) advice and trouble-shooting that I've tried to convey in this thread.  And that starts with "deliberate on system first, introspect second, consider "player as problem" last".


----------



## Fenris-77

Manbearcat said:


> I don't disagree with your take here.  However, I simultaneously find them on 5e D&D's top 3 list (along with Background Traits and Lair Actions).  So (if that is on my top 3 while agreeing that its not particularly compelling conflict resolution archetecture), that should tell you why I don't run 5e D&D unless I'm forced to stand-in for a few weeks for a fatigued GM.
> 
> That being said, if I'm forced to choose between the somewhat player-facing/somewhat structured (both in terms of GM mental workspace and actual play) nature of the Social Interaction mechanics of 5e D&D + their Social Pantomime meets Wheel of Fortune nature (which isn't terrible) vs something entirely GM-facing and entirely lacking structure (and therefore potentially prone to all of the dynamics inherent to that model)...I'm going to choose the former.



I think it's a move in the right direction for D&D, for sure. It could have been great  but, sadly, it's not. It could also be tons worse, so there's that. When I'm hacking about looking to 'improve' 5E the I/B/F and Inspiration bit is usually where I start. It might no be great. but I think the basics are robust enough that they can be usefully embiggened. I still haven't hit on the right mix for myself, but it's been more fruitful than anything else I've monkeyed around with.


----------



## iserith

Fenris-77 said:


> Hmm. I'm just going to toss this out there - Ideal, Bonds and Flaws are a weak spot in the 5e rules IMO. I find the basic system toothless and inconsequential, and I think that their only tangential relationship to NPC motivations in the moment make them less that ideal tools for social interaction. Every time I have to abstract from an ideal to what to do in this case for an NPC that's a step I don't want to have to make. It's probably not terrible for big screen time NPCs that are fully fleshed out, but for bit players it's way more abstract than I find useful. YMMV of course. I don't use it at all in my campaigns.




I don't think they are intended for bit players. The DMG suggests they be used for NPCs who are likely to be involved in negotiations or for NPCs who play larger roles in the adventures including named monsters. Sentient magic items might also have them.

The absence of a specific ideal, bond, and flaw for the baron could either be a statement that this NPC isn't actually all that important compared to, say, his strongman, or it's an oversight by the writer.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> Are you suggesting that the PC can do nothing but hurl insults at people?  If so, that sounds a bit........more than a bit one dimensional as a character.  If the PC isn't so incredibly one dimensional, then he will in fact be able to do something.  Lots of somethings.  Like, engage in the conversation in many different non-insulting ways.




No, not suggesting that he must only insult. But since social interaction tends to be seen as being the responsibility of the "party face" or "party spokesperson", and that in many cases, CHA is a weak spot. That weak spot should come into play just as someone's crappy AC should come into play in combat. 

I don't think we're generally disagreeing.....my point was more about how those things tend to play out and how many are citing them playing out here in this thread. "Hey Mongo, you shut up while we talk to this guy." 

Also, I personally don't have a problem if Mongo decides to speak up and insults the NPC. And I know plenty of players, even ones of more socially minded characters, who wouldn't mind either. So I don't know if I agree that this is even a problem in the first place, as far as insulting a NPC.




Maxperson said:


> It can be, sure.  However, if the only way a player can become engaged in a social situation is through insults, the problem is with the player and not the social interaction.  That's a player that will cause the party and other players a lot of grief in social situations, which is a significant pillar of the game.




It may be the player's fault, sure. At least partly. There are other contributing factors, too, such as the GM attempting to involve that PC or not, or the rules not really having a lot of heft in this area, especially for certain classes and so on. Fighters can start with Proficiency in Intimidate, but not with Persuasion, for instance. I mean, guess how that person is going to try to handle social interactions. 

And note, I don't think that's a problem in and of itself.



Maxperson said:


> I agree and said so above.  I do just that.  My NPCs talk to different members of the party.  I don't care if the Paladin is the social character in the party, if the NPC is having an issue with arcane wizardry, he's talking to the book Wormish wizard and not the Paladin.




Yes, that's the kind of thing I have in mind. I'd go even further and simply have the NPC ask other PCs about things because that's generally how conversations work. Even in a situation like this where there may be protocols and etiquette to follow. Why wouldn't the NPC ever think "hmmm they've no doubt asked the bard to state their case because he's a smooth talker.....let me see what this sneering brute over here has to say"? I mean, the OP makes an appeal to what's realistic, but expects certain party members to keep their mouths shut for purely gamist reasons.

And to be clear, I don't even mind the gamist reasons....let other players shine, niche protection, and so on....in and of themselves. Personally, I think the fiction can almost always be made to match what we want it to. But if a preference for "realism" is cited, I'd kind of expect that preference to apply throughout the encounter, and not just to the outcome.


----------



## Fenris-77

iserith said:


> I don't think they are intended for bit players. The DMG suggests they be used for NPCs who are likely to be involved in negotiations or for NPCs who play larger roles in the adventures including named monsters. Sentient magic items might also have them.



I'm sure that works out ok for those that use them if they keep them to the big wigs. I'd still prefer something a little more tangible for negotiations. Something that more directly indexes the matter that's likely to be at hand. Exactly what that looks like is obviously very different from NCP to NPC of course. Something, in the case of the Baron, like_ the baron will likely do X or Y if faced with a serious challenge to his authority, and is likely to be patronizing and dismissive otherwise. He is paranoid, and tends to see challenge and conspiracy where none exists. He responds positively to flattery, especially of his leadership. _That could be communicated in the module a bunch of different ways and role playing that as the DM is pretty straight forward. The more potential ways the PCs might interact with an NPC the more detail might be needed or useful. What I'm looking for isn't all that different from I/B/F, just more specifc and useful.


iserith said:


> The absence of a specific ideal, bond, and flaw for the baron could either be a statement that this NPC isn't actually all that important compared to, say, his strongman, or it's an oversight by the writer.



That I'll agree with wholeheartedly. Probably the latter rather than the former.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> The impression I got from the OP was that the CHA checks were related/directed to the Mad Tyrant, so we're getting even more counterfactual here by having it aimed at the Captain; but I'll play this game for the nonce. If the Captain is so much the focus of the Mad Tyrant's Bond, he seems as though he might need fleshing out the same way as the Mad Tyrant, and he needs to be the sort who'd earn the Mad Tyrant's trust, keep it, and not act out before now. It's at least as easy to write those so his Bond is, e.g., "An insult to my Lord is an insult to me" as anything else; maybe his Ideal is "I will do what I must to keep the peace between my Lord and the citizens" and his Flaw is "I keep my Lord's trust by keeping my silence." Now we have an NPC who'd be the sort of quiet sideman who'd be the focus of the Mad Tyrant's Bond, and keep his position and other wise fit into the setting as described. And by insulting the Mad Tyrant, the PCs have triggers the Captain's Bond, and made it much harder for them to persuade him not to arrest them.




I don't have time to get into all of your post, but there are a few key areas that I have significant disagreement with (to the point that I think you either don't understand conceptually what I'm talking about or I've communicated poorly).

What I do have time for and want to say (because I can do so quickly and it actually hooks into the concepts issue cited above) is:

1)  We're talking about first principles here.  We don't have to map the exact situation of the lead post to do so.  Neither I, nor you, nor anyone in this thread has enough information about all of the extremely important details of that conflict, so I'll in-fill some details and bring the resolution up in order to do a post-mortem (which is what I typically do in these scenarios...its basically what I've done since I began posting here...either introduce my own excerpt or increase the resolution of a present excerpt to sufficiently analyze it).

2)  The fact that you've invoked "aimed at the Captain" is a not-so-subtle indicator that you're not quite understanding how the dynamics of this work.  Neither the player in their action declaration nor the PC within the fiction are "aiming their words at the Captain."  What is happening is deft GMing.  You need an emergent consequence which honors the players success while simultaneously honoring the nature of the situation and the component parts of the fiction.  The gamestate and the fiction need to change positively.  How are those two changed positively?  The GM evolves the post-resolution fiction to put the Baron and the Captain at odds, thus stealing some of the Baron's boldness and, in the case of 5e D&D, revealing the nature of their relationship, thus providing an asset (the Bond) for the players to deploy in subsequent action declarations.


----------



## Campbell

A Few Notes


There are obviously games where some characters are not effective combatants and shine in other areas of the game. Fifth Edition is definitely not one of those games.
Regardless of system vagaries we must (as players - including the GM) achieve unity of purpose. Is our chief priority playing out a cooperative game to achieve victory over the GM's adventure? Is it creating a compelling fiction together? Characters might not have unity of purpose, but the players absolutely should. Some games provide this in the text, but for some games (including 5e) we must actively work to build unity of purpose.


----------



## billd91

iserith said:


> The absence of a specific ideal, bond, and flaw for the baron could either be a statement that this NPC isn't actually all that important compared to, say, his strongman, or it's an oversight by the writer.




Honestly, the burgomaster, his wife, and son probably don't really need them. There's about half a page on role playing them and that seems more than enough to work with without including ideals, bonds, and flaws as specific shorthand character descriptions.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> The fact that you've invoked "aimed at the Captain" is a not-so-subtle indicator that you're not quite understanding how the dynamics of this work.  Neither the player in their action declaration nor the PC within the fiction are "aiming their words at the Captain."  What is happening is deft GMing.  You need an emergent consequence which honors the players success while simultaneously honoring the nature of the situation and the component parts of the fiction.  The gamestate and the fiction need to change positively.  How are those two changed positively?  The GM evolves the post-resolution fiction to put the Baron and the Captain at odds, thus stealing some of the Baron's boldness and, in the case of 5e D&D, revealing the nature of their relationship, thus providing an asset (the Bond) for the players to deploy in subsequent action declarations.




PC declares (roughly) "I try to talk the Mad Tyrant out of arresting us."

GM says, "The Captain says ..."

So, having the PC's success on a check affect a character other than the one the player intended--and declared--is ... an awful lot like taking control of the character away from the player.

Also, from the description of the event, the Captain wasn't there to hear the insult, so all he knows is the Mad Tyrant is ordering the PCs taken away in irons.

Sorry, no sale.

On the other hand, I'll point (for the umpteenth time) that there were successes and the gameplay state was affected. There were PCs who were allowed to walk freely away from the encounter. The situation sounds more dynamic to me than I think you're giving it credit for.


----------



## Manbearcat

billd91 said:


> Honestly, the burgomaster, his wife, and son probably don't really need them. There's about half a page on role playing them and that seems more than enough to work with without including ideals, bonds, and flaws as specific shorthand character descriptions.




Last thing and I have to go.

If true, that tells me that this is either poor adventure writing (no way!) or the GM is expected to do more work (if this is actually an NPC that has the capacity to be engaged with). It basically confirms that this is a flat NPC with a (sad) binary tree of approaches and attendant outcomes:

1) Submit to his will/disposition and gain favor.

2) Destroy him.

That doesn’t make for a particularly dynamic obstacle for social conflict and the only sort of play that gets to express any thematic impetus that is in opposition to his will or disposition fundamentally funnels you to option (2).

Not great!


----------



## billd91

Manbearcat said:


> Last thing and I have to go.
> 
> If true, that tells me that this is either poor adventure writing (no way!) or the GM is expected to do more work (if this is actually an NPC that has the capacity to be engaged with). It basically confirms that this is a flat NPC with a (sad) binary tree of approaches and attendant outcomes:
> 
> 1) Submit to his will/disposition and gain favor.
> 
> 2) Destroy him.
> 
> That doesn’t make for a particularly dynamic obstacle for social conflict and the only sort of play that gets to express any thematic impetus that is in opposition to his will or disposition fundamentally funnels you to option (2).
> 
> Not great!




You have no idea unless you've read it. So I'd suggest not engaging in baseless speculation.


----------



## Numidius

Manbearcat said:


> Then this could be a case of a GM's "realistic consequences" take not incorporating all of the potential complexities of the situation even as the module attempts to convey them. I don't know.




So it seems, at least from my keyboard I think I'd like to run the weird co-starring NPC's to exploit the situation as a consequence to the PC's actions.



> What I do know is this. If I'm giving any GM who is in the position where they're looking for answers about how to make play work when it appears to have run afoul because of competing priorities in an instance of play (and presumably its not just an instance of talking to a player to resolve an issue with lack of sincerity/decorum...because, again, why are we bringing that to ENWorld if its just that simple), I'm not giving them the George Lakoff Strict Father model that seems to undergird so many classical viking-hat GM approaches to D&D.




Me neither. I prefer to foster interest in Players with involvement, not neglect.



> I'm giving them the broad and system-specific (in this case 5e D&D) advice and trouble-shooting that I've tried to convey in this thread. And that starts with "deliberate on system first, introspect second, consider "player as problem" last".




I'd extend the "introspection" phase also to the Players to make known to the whole table their feelings, before proceeding.


----------



## Numidius

prabe said:


> Sure. In instances when the a party has all been dealing with someone like that, it's usually been because all the party wanted to be there--and I've let the PCs who wanted to speak, speak, and not beaten up on someone for having a low CHA. So far, no one has tried insulting their way to social success, so I haven't had to deal with this precise problem.



Have you ever played Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay by the greenish not-so-pale moonlight?


----------



## prabe

Numidius said:


> Have you ever played Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay by the greenish not-so-pale moonlight?




I have not. What I've gathered about the setting doesn't appeal--for hard choices, I have a preference for heroic characters choosing among competing goods, not gray-against-the-black types selecting the lesser (or least) evil. If I'm wrong, it's out of ignorance not malice.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Manbearcat said:


> Last thing and I have to go.
> 
> If true, that tells me that this is either poor adventure writing (no way!) or the GM is expected to do more work (if this is actually an NPC that has the capacity to be engaged with). It basically confirms that this is a flat NPC with a (sad) binary tree of approaches and attendant outcomes:
> 
> 1) Submit to his will/disposition and gain favor.
> 
> 2) Destroy him.
> 
> That doesn’t make for a particularly dynamic obstacle for social conflict and the only sort of play that gets to express any thematic impetus that is in opposition to his will or disposition fundamentally funnels you to option (2).
> 
> Not great!




I think that the risk is there, for sure. I mean.....it seems pretty obvious given the OP and the conversation that has followed. 

I don't think the adventure is poorly designed though. I think that the Baron's town of Vallaki is a pretty dynamic location, without any clear path to any kind of "victory" at all. So, a DM can take that situation and allow the PCs to really go a variety of ways with it. 

Alternatively, if a DM decides for whatever reason to kind of present it as a case of options 1 or 2 as you've described....this is not in any way a disruption to the larger adventure. He's not important enough that a demotion to flat character you either kowtow to or kill is perfectly fine.


----------



## Numidius

prabe said:


> I have not. What I've gathered about the setting doesn't appeal--for hard choices, I have a preference for heroic characters choosing among competing goods, not gray-against-the-black types selecting the lesser (or least) evil. If I'm wrong, it's out of ignorance not malice.



Sure. I will add an underlying dark humourous irreverent tone to the baroque and filthy setting, especially when depicting authority figures. 

If you haven't, I suggest you to flip thru the (pdf?) pages of the memorable first edition (1986) and have a look at the beautiful and iconic splash page pictures.


----------



## iserith

billd91 said:


> Honestly, the burgomaster, his wife, and son probably don't really need them. There's about half a page on role playing them and that seems more than enough to work with without including ideals, bonds, and flaws as specific shorthand character descriptions.




I've played the module and read this section and I definitely would have written ideals, bonds, and flaws for these NPCs. Izek Strazni has them. I think it's better as a reference point when running the game, particularly with the social interaction rules, than whatever I would half-remember from information spread over a few pages.


----------



## Ovinomancer

billd91 said:


> You have no idea unless you've read it. So I'd suggest not engaging in baseless speculation.



His analysis doesn't rest on intimate knowledge of the material -- it's rooted in the fact that the 5e rules state that important NPCs or NPCs that need to be negotiated with should have BIFTs.  The Burgomaster does not, hence, by the rules of the game, is not intended to be an important social encounter to be engaged by the PCs but a minor, trivial encounter or an obstacle to be removed outside of the social pillar.

Further, I've both read and played this encounter, so I am not engaging in baseless speculation when I say that the Burgomaster of Vallaki is a shallow NPC written in a way as to be either placated or removed, but not negotiated with.

Honestly, as good as CoS is overall, the Burgomaster plotline in Vallaki is terrible because it does set up an immovable NPC that reacts violently to any questions about their actions/leadership.  That the rest of the family is interesting does not change this fact -- the write-up doesn't say that unless you help his wife he'll toss you out for questioning his leadership at all (note, not insult, but even question) or if you help repair his relationship with his son.  No, it says he will, unchangingly, banish the PC for merely questioning his leadership and goals.

That's a bad NPC, especially one that the module creates as a nearly guaranteed interaction point, and the leader of the best base of operations in the game.  The Burgomaster is a trap, not for the players, but for the GM.  It takes deft skill and experience to realize when and how to toss or modify the Burgomaster.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> PC declares (roughly) "I try to talk the Mad Tyrant out of arresting us."
> 
> GM says, "The Captain says ..."
> 
> So, having the PC's success on a check affect a character other than the one the player intended--and declared--is ... an awful lot like taking control of the character away from the player.
> 
> Also, from the description of the event, the Captain wasn't there to hear the insult, so all he knows is the Mad Tyrant is ordering the PCs taken away in irons.
> 
> Sorry, no sale.
> 
> On the other hand, I'll point (for the umpteenth time) that there were successes and the gameplay state was affected. There were PCs who were allowed to walk freely away from the encounter. The situation sounds more dynamic to me than I think you're giving it credit for.



Honestly, if that's what you took from what @Manbearcat said, you've badly misinterpreted him.  His example doesn't do this at all, it has the Burgomaster call for the captain and tell the captain to banish the PCs for questioning his leadership.  At which point, the captain backs up the PC's, putting the Burgomaster on the spot.

This takes the PC's action directly at the Burgomaster (the insult) but ends with a positive outcome (due to the successful roll) in that the Captain of the guard, the Burgomaster's Bond, is now on the PCs side.  Why?  Perhaps the Captain has long wanted to tell the Burgomaster that things are bad due to his leadership and hasn't, but now, since the PC has insulted the Burgomaster's leadership and they are powerful, sees an opportunity to advance the case.  Having NPCs join a discussion to support/hinder the PCs based on their actions is a good tool to have in the pocket -- it creates dynamic social situations that follow the PC's declared actions and their successes.  Otherwise, social interactions turn into the 'I hit you, you hit me' of the standstill combat model.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Ovinomancer said:


> Honestly, if that's what you took from what @Manbearcat said, you've badly misinterpreted him.  His example doesn't do this at all, it has the Burgomaster call for the captain and tell the captain to banish the PCs for questioning his leadership.  At which point, the captain backs up the PC's, putting the Burgomaster on the spot.
> 
> This takes the PC's action directly at the Burgomaster (the insult) but ends with a positive outcome (due to the successful roll) in that the Captain of the guard, the Burgomaster's Bond, is now on the PCs side.  Why?  Perhaps the Captain has long wanted to tell the Burgomaster that things are bad due to his leadership and hasn't, but now, since the PC has insulted the Burgomaster's leadership and they are powerful, sees an opportunity to advance the case.  Having NPCs join a discussion to support/hinder the PCs based on their actions is a good tool to have in the pocket -- it creates dynamic social situations that follow the PC's declared actions and their successes.  Otherwise, social interactions turn into the 'I hit you, you hit me' of the standstill combat model.



Conversely, overuse can lead to scenarios where there is no fail state or real consequences. Work with the Baron and you get what you need. Anger him and you still get what you need.

It's not that it's a bad approach per se, but it is something to be cautious of. You don't want to render the PCs choices moot.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> No, not suggesting that he must only insult. But since social interaction tends to be seen as being the responsibility of the "party face" or "party spokesperson", and that in many cases, CHA is a weak spot. That weak spot should come into play just as someone's crappy AC should come into play in combat.
> 
> I don't think we're generally disagreeing.....my point was more about how those things tend to play out and how many are citing them playing out here in this thread. "Hey Mongo, you shut up while we talk to this guy."
> 
> Also, I personally don't have a problem if Mongo decides to speak up and insults the NPC. And I know plenty of players, even ones of more socially minded characters, who wouldn't mind either. So I don't know if I agree that this is even a problem in the first place, as far as insulting a NPC.




Yeah.  I think we're generally on the same page here.



> It may be the player's fault, sure. At least partly. There are other contributing factors, too, such as the GM attempting to involve that PC or not, or the rules not really having a lot of heft in this area, especially for certain classes and so on. Fighters can start with Proficiency in Intimidate, but not with Persuasion, for instance. I mean, guess how that person is going to try to handle social interactions.




Every class can start at 1st level with any proficiency the player wants.  Backgrounds give 2 proficiencies and if you don't like what the pre-made backgrounds give, you can just create a background with whichever 2 you want.



> Yes, that's the kind of thing I have in mind. I'd go even further and simply have the NPC ask other PCs about things because that's generally how conversations work. Even in a situation like this where there may be protocols and etiquette to follow. Why wouldn't the NPC ever think "hmmm they've no doubt asked the bard to state their case because he's a smooth talker.....let me see what this sneering brute over here has to say"? I mean, the OP makes an appeal to what's realistic, but expects certain party members to keep their mouths shut for purely gamist reasons.




Sure.  I wasn't saying that they only ask the person with the best skill set.  It was just an example I was putting forward.  I try and have my NPCs behave like someone in a conversation would act.


----------



## billd91

Ovinomancer said:


> That's a bad NPC, especially one that the module creates as a nearly guaranteed interaction point, and the leader of the best base of operations in the game.  The Burgomaster is a trap, not for the players, but for the GM.  It takes deft skill and experience to realize when and how to toss or modify the Burgomaster.




Clearly we have a difference of opinion. Not every NPC needs to be swayable or manipulable by the PCs or have layers of texture. Some are simply obstacles and annoyances. And that's fine, not a trap.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Manbearcat said:


> The only game I run where PCs are thematically neutral and unidimensional is Moldvay Basic D&D. But that game makes no bones about its challenge-based, pawn stance orientation toward play where the exclusive play priority is getting as much stuff as you can out of a dungeon before your loadout falters. Here PC unidimensionality is a feature, not a bug.
> 
> Outside of that, It’s basically impossible to create unidimensional PCs (and/or play them as such) in the other games I run so it’s not a concern that I have had to bear out.
> 
> Here is where I often see unidimensional PCs emerge:
> 
> * D&D games where multiple dominant play priorities/paradigms converge and simultaneously threaten the integrity of each other:
> 
> 1) Challenge-based.
> 
> 2) “Realism” (often this is GM Simulation)-based.
> 
> 3)  PCs are advertised as protagonists (the thing whose dramatic need is advocated for, expressed through play,  and ultimately changes; amplifies, degrades, or morphs).
> 
> 4)  When actually the setting is already encoded as the protagonist before play has even begun and it becomes abundantly clear as play progresses.
> 
> 
> What happens?
> 
> Players go into the game wanting to overcome obstacles with their built PCs.
> 
> Players may also want to express and propagate some dramatic need and attendant arc.
> 
> That need and arc become second fiddle (background color to the settings prptagonism) if they manifest at all. This can happen through moments of GM Force subverting a player trying to project their will onto the fiction. This can come from players trying to change the gamestate posotively in a noncombat situation but perceiving that they’ve been fouled (and will yet be foiled in the future) by a GM misappropriating the trajectory of play due to inconsistent or uninferrable mediation of mostly/wholly GM-facing resolution procedures.
> 
> Invariably, the player falls back entirely on (a) challenge-based priorities centered around combat (b) which are consistent and inferrable because they’re player-facing and easily actionable by just escalating to violence.
> 
> All that has to be done to prevent this degeneration (insofar as someone doesn’t intend for this to occur as a product of play) is change the orientation of play (priorities, relationships, resolution procedures/mechanics).



I don't really see a player building an always rude character for the reasons you put forth. Care to expound on how it relates?


----------



## Ovinomancer

While I recognize that @iserith has the right of how the 5e DMG does social interactions, and that it's a functional framework, I find it to be lacking in creating the kind of memorable social encounters that I want.  The 5e framework, on it's own, feels like it's still functionally one dimensional -- you're moving towards your ask and you get it or you don't.  I don't find that to be rewarding.  

Instead, I expand almost all of my important social encounters to use a skill challenge framework (usually 4-5 successes before 3 failures).  I borrow from the 5e in that taking an action to uncover a BIFT is useful, but the structure of the encounter isn't 'Improve Attitude, Make Ask' but a more incremental step through.  Players declare actions to move towards their goals, with successes changing the situation in a positive way and failures altering the situation in a negative way.  This combination means that a situation can resolve with the players getting what they want, but also having negative complications following them (success in the social challenge may not remove failure consequences, depending on what actions the PCs take).

This removes the 'one bad step into the GM's scripted NPCs reactions' problem, in that no single insult, even if the GM was inclined to rule it an autofailure, would derail the social encounter.  Instead, I'd add a complication that would indicate a failure had occurred.  In fullness, I'd ask the PC what they wanted to accomplish with their insult (the goal of the action declaration) and then probably ask for a check to see if they got what they wanted.  A failure, in this case, might result in me narrating the Burgomaster taking a depth breath, ringing a small bell on his desk that causes the door to open and two guards to step in and stand beside the door,  and then saying something like, "No man has dared insult me for half a decade.  It is only with great effort I'm willing to afford you leniency, but once more and I shall not promise I will withhold my wrath."  This doesn't end the scene, but it does raise the stakes and let's the PC's know that something involving guards is now on the table and that insults are not the way to influence the Burgomaster successfully.  If the PCs try the insult route again, I might very likely rule that an autofailure, given the situation as it stands.  However, if the PC decides to press their case that the Burgomaster is in the wrong, but refrains from outright insults, they'd get a chance, although a failure might then be taken as an insult and that PC would be taken away to serve a term in the stocks/jail for their belligerence, and the party would now be very close to failing to get anything positive from this scene (3 failures).

Regardless of how the scene ends up, the PC that insulted the Burgomaster would now have a very frosty relationship with the Burgomaster and anyone allied with him, which might lead to later interesting social encounters.

To wrap up, I find 5e's DMG version of social encounters to still be very one-dimensional, although I like it better than free-form GM sim social encounters (which always end up as 'guess what the GM's thinking').  I embellish it with some 4e tech, and that works for me.  I also always look at failures in the social pillar (and, honestly, in the exploration pillar) as 'fail forward' opportunities where I can introduce a complication or consequence without closing off overall success outright.  Repeated failure will result in overall failure, but, again, usually in a fail-forward way that means this approach is invalid (and has a steep cost), but other methods are still available.  Failing to convince the Burgomaster, for instance, would have repercussions (which may include being run out of town), but you can still engage with the Lady or overthrow the Burgomaster outright or something entirely different -- all of which will have their own sets of outcomes.


----------



## Ovinomancer

billd91 said:


> Clearly we have a difference of opinion. Not every NPC needs to be swayable or manipulable by the PCs or have layers of texture. Some are simply obstacles and annoyances. And that's fine, not a trap.



Ah, so you do actually agree with @Manbearcat that the Burgomaster is meant to be placated or removed as an obstacle.  You had an odd way of agreeing.


----------



## Fenris-77

billd91 said:


> Clearly we have a difference of opinion. Not every NPC needs to be swayable or manipulable by the PCs or have layers of texture. Some are simply obstacles and annoyances. And that's fine, not a trap.



I'm trying to think of an example where the NPC might not need to be at least potentially manipulable. Players are tricksie and sometimes zig when you might reasonably expect them to zag. Not that every NPC needs to be deep or anything, quite the opposite, but if the players unexpectedly decide to interact in a more meaningful with one of your cardboard cutouts, having at least a couple of short tags to work with is a good idea. I'm not advocating for ridiculous over-design or anything though.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fanaelialae said:


> Conversely, overuse can lead to scenarios where there is no fail state or real consequences. Work with the Baron and you get what you need. Anger him and you still get what you need.
> 
> It's not that it's a bad approach per se, but it is something to be cautious of. You don't want to render the PCs choices moot.



Huh?  The player succeeded at their check, and that was the result @Manbearcat narrated for the success.  Nothing about what happens on a failure was discussed -- MBC was talking about how you could take an insult from a PC, apply mechanics, and what a successful insult might look like.

I will say without checking with MBC that if a failure was rolled, a consequence would be levied that wasn't 'fail and get what you want.'


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> I think the word _helpful _is pretty fundamental here.
> 
> I talk with groups of people all the time - groups of students; groups of colleagues; groups of friends; etc. In those groups, normally some are more articulate than others. But they are not the only ones who speak. I have things I want to know from others (eg _What is it that you're finding hard about this example?_ or _What movie do you want to see?_). I have things I want to say to others, which prompt them to respond. They have ideas and knowledge and emotions that they want to express, so they speak.
> 
> It's striking to me that, in a thread about "realistic" consequences, a defender of those is putting forward such an unrealistic picture of human interactions.



Just like posting in this forum. 

There's posters on this site who, were I to meet them in real life, I would probably quickly realize I had neither liking nor time for, and walk away.  There's others who I'd probably become good friends with (even though we might not always agree on gaming topics  ) and fortunately those seem to greatly outnumber the [_insert suitable putdown here_]s.

But even the [_xxxx_]s sooner or later have something useful to say (which is why I've taken the stance that I will never block or 'ignore' anyone, no matter what), which makes it all worthwhile; though in between those times yes, I often find their posts unhelpful or worse.

The same is true of in-fiction social interactions.  If players are playing their characters true, there's bound to be times when a character says or does the wrong thing in the wrong time or place just because it's how they rock.  And it won't be helpful.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Ovinomancer said:


> Huh?  The player succeeded at their check, and that was the result @Manbearcat narrated for the success.  Nothing about what happens on a failure was discussed -- MBC was talking about how you could take an insult from a PC, apply mechanics, and what a successful insult might look like.
> 
> I will say without checking with MBC that if a failure was rolled, a consequence would be levied that wasn't 'fail and get what you want.'



Fair enough, I read it while taking a short break from work a few hours ago, so the details weren't fresh in my mind. 

Nonetheless, I think you do have to be cautious about using this. If the check against the Captain fails, should the characters now be given a chance to convince the guards to turn against their Captain? If they fail against the guards, should they have a chance to convince the servants to rise up against the guards? None of that is entirely unreasonable, but it's also not something that necessarily desirable.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> I'm trying to think of an example where the NPC might not need to be at least potentially manipulable. Players are tricksie and sometimes zig when you might reasonably expect them to zag. Not that every NPC needs to be deep or anything, quite the opposite, but if the players unexpectedly decide to interact in a more meaningful with one of your cardboard cutouts, having at least a couple of short tags to work with is a good idea. I'm not advocating for ridiculous over-design or anything though.



I disagree.  For example, in my Sigil game, one of my players has a contact as part of his background that provides side-quests.  This NPC is always helpful, never duplicitous, and always is on the side of the PCs.  This is true because it's a background investment by the player, so it doesn't bite in at all, much like taking a feat shouldn't bite you.  This NPC is a vehicle for the player to engage his PC's goals, and I keep him free of manipulation.  I have a few notes on appearance and mannerisms so it's consistent, but nothing else -- Saul the Fixer will always align to the PC's goals and be a good ally.  I think it's important to have elements of the game that are always PC allied, else the game turns into Suspicion and Paranoia.

Now, another player's PC has earned a relationship with an Illithid through play, both successes and failures, that is a tenuous ally that clearly has it's own goals.  That relationship is fraught and always a challenge to interact to see if you come away better or worse for the deal.  As an ally, he will usually get a deal that's somewhat beneficial to him (so success is, in some way, baked in), but what he has to pay to get the deal and/or what plots the Illithid advances as part of the deal are open to negotiation.

These are very different allies, but still examples of two ways I approach allies.  The first is, as noted, part of the PC's backstory, and, as such, is reliable.  The second was earned through play and, as such, can be adversarial even as an ally.  It might be possible to get an ally such as the former through play in my game, but unlikely.  Just as unlikely would be to get an unreliable and fully adverse ally.  Usually, you'll get something like the latter with multiple failures -- in this specific case, the PC is an ex-Illithid thrall trying to reconstruct their past and had made some big failures at crucial points in this quest so has 1) learned that he volunteered to be a thrall (this was consensual, or, at least, the players agreed to the threshold at which I'm able to screw with their backstories prior to play and this player crossed that threshold) and 2) while looking for allies against the Illithids, both failed and succeeded, so he found an ally, but it was a rogue Illithid with an uncertain agenda that has resources and knowledge that aid the PC.  Yup, I'm beating on this PC pretty hard.  He likes it.


----------



## Lanefan

Imaculata said:


> I'm wondering how I would have handled this social interaction with the Baron if it had come up in any of my campaigns. I've had lots of social encounters in my sessions as a DM. I always establish clear motivations and goals for an npc. The npc basically has wants, and do-not-wants. They have things they want to achieve, and things they are trying to avoid. And they have information that they may be willing or unwilling to share with the party.



It gets even more fun and interesting if the interaction isn't just a one-time thing but the important NPC is in fact someone the party wants to (or needs to) interact with repeatedly over time.

Why? Because the NPC's goals, motivations, moods, wants, etc. can change from one meeting to the next, expecially if there's any great amount of time between said meetings.

In my current campaign there's actually several of these, of whom only one is mostly an open book.



> If my players had insulted the Baron, the face of the party would have to succeed on a high check to undo that damage. But drawing a weapon and making an attempt on the Baron's life? There's only so much a social check can reasonably do. At that point the Baron would order his men to kill the attacker, or to have him seized.
> 
> Of course, this does not have to be the end of that adventure. The players can resist arrest on the spot (either by trying to escape, or starting combat).  They can try to free their companions from jail, either covertly (a prison break, or a bribe), or by striking a deal with the Baron (quest hook).



This is all excellent.



> This is provided that the player who attacked the Baron intends to continue play from this point. If he regrets his actions, I see no issue with rewinding and pretending it didn't happen.



This isn't.  Retcons are an absolute non-starter. 

What happened, happened, because otherwise everything that happened afterwards - that was at the time influenced by the now-retconned event - is invalidated.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fanaelialae said:


> Fair enough, I read it while taking a short break from work a few hours ago, so the details weren't fresh in my mind.
> 
> Nonetheless, I think you do have to be cautious about using this. If the check against the Captain fails, should the characters now be given a chance to convince the guards to turn against their Captain? If they fail against the guards, should they have a chance to convince the servants to rise up against the guards? None of that is entirely unreasonable, but it's also not something that necessarily desirable.



Turtles all the way down isn't a compelling argument, no.  Of course, no one has suggested that it's turtles all the way down, so....


----------



## iserith

Ovinomancer said:


> While I recognize that @iserith has the right of how the 5e DMG does social interactions, and that it's a functional framework, I find it to be lacking in creating the kind of memorable social encounters that I want.  The 5e framework, on it's own, feels like it's still functionally one dimensional -- you're moving towards your ask and you get it or you don't.  I don't find that to be rewarding.
> 
> Instead, I expand almost all of my important social encounters to use a skill challenge framework (usually 4-5 successes before 3 failures).  I borrow from the 5e in that taking an action to uncover a BIFT is useful, but the structure of the encounter isn't 'Improve Attitude, Make Ask' but a more incremental step through.  Players declare actions to move towards their goals, with successes changing the situation in a positive way and failures altering the situation in a negative way.  This combination means that a situation can resolve with the players getting what they want, but also having negative complications following them (success in the social challenge may not remove failure consequences, depending on what actions the PCs take).




One thing to bear in mind is that if you use the social interaction rules as written, the ask at the end is still an ability check (if there's an ability check at all) which means a botched roll can be resolved into failure _or _progress combined with a setback. So it doesn't have to be "you get it or you don't." Progress combined with a setback is generally how I do it.

It sounds like we may do something similar with multiple steps during the conversation piece. What I often do is have a slider on the screen or at the table that is labeled 1 to 6. If the NPC is at 6, they are hostile. If they are at 1, they are friendly. Anywhere in between is indifferent. They start at a predetermined attitude (possibly random), say, 4. At this point I raise various objections or tough questions by the NPC during the conversation that the PCs can try to overcome or answer. If they do, then the slider moves toward friendly. If they don't, it moves toward hostile. Once I'm out of objections or questions, that's the final attitude of the NPC and now we can get to the PCs' ask.


----------



## Lanefan

prabe said:


> That's true. As I said, there's no TRPG system that leads to PCs bantering as though they're in Eddings.



Yeah, I don't know how Eddings-like banter could possibly ever be system-driven.

That said, it (or something similar) arises spontaneously at the table often enough I think the system in this case is doing just fine by staying out of the way.


----------



## Lanefan

FrogReaver said:


> holding your tongue isn’t an action. It’s doing nothing.



"_Sometimes nothings lead to the best somethings._" - Winnie the Pooh.


----------



## prabe

iserith said:


> If they are at 1, they are friendly. Anywhere in between is indifferent. They start at a predetermined attitude (possibly random), say, 4. At this point I raise various objections or tough questions by the NPC during the conversation that the PCs can try to overcome or answer. If they do, then the slider moves toward friendly. If they don't, it moves toward hostile. Once I'm out of objections or questions, that's the final attitude of the NPC and now we can get to the PCs' ask.




I genuinely don't think there's a bad answer here, but I'm curious: Is that slider visible to the players?


----------



## Ovinomancer

iserith said:


> One thing to bear in mind is that if you use the social interaction rules as written, the ask at the end is still an ability check (if there's an ability check at all) which means a botched roll can be resolved into failure _or _progress combined with a setback. So it doesn't have to be "you get it or you don't." Progress combined with a setback is generally how I do it.
> 
> It sounds like we may do something similar with multiple steps during the conversation piece. What I often do is have a slider on the screen or at the table that is labeled 1 to 6. If the NPC is at 6, they are hostile. If they are at 1, they are friendly. Anywhere in between is indifferent. They start at a predetermined attitude (possibly random), say, 4. At this point I raise various objections or tough questions by the NPC during the conversation that the PCs can try to overcome or answer. If they do, then the slider moves toward friendly. If they don't, it moves toward hostile. Once I'm out of objections or questions, that's the final attitude of the NPC and now we can get to the PCs' ask.



Roger that about the success with setback.  I probably should have phrased it with 'you succeed or you fail.'  The complaint wasn't that you couldn't fail forward with the DMG method, but that it either results in a success or a failure, there's no real way for it to end in a more complex situation where you might overall succeed at the goal but have lasting consequences from failures along the way, or fail at your goal but still have some lasting consequences from your successes.  The roll-up to the final check leaves the outcome of the whole situation up to the GM's end narration rather than accruing as you go.

I do very much like the attitude slider, though.  Reminds me of the clocks in Blades in the Dark -- a bit of game tech I adore.   I'm just not as much a fan of the stock 5e social interaction mini-game.  However, I did use it as written first, before I decided I'd like to add some bits from other games to expand the social pillar.  I agree with you that you should try a game as it's presented before you run off and start playing it like a different game.


----------



## iserith

prabe said:


> I genuinely don't think there's a bad answer here, but I'm curious: Is that slider visible to the players?




Yes, it's visible to the players. Visually moving that slider toward hostile reinforces the failure and increases the tension.


----------



## prabe

iserith said:


> Yes, it's visible to the players. Visually moving that slider toward hostile reinforces the failure and increases the tension.




Given how transparent you seem to be as a GM, that was my first guess, but I could see it being useful as a GM-facing tool, also.


----------



## iserith

Ovinomancer said:


> Roger that about the success with setback.  I probably should have phrased it with 'you succeed or you fail.'  The complaint wasn't that you couldn't fail forward with the DMG method, but that it either results in a success or a failure, there's no real way for it to end in a more complex situation where you might overall succeed at the goal but have lasting consequences from failures along the way, or fail at your goal but still have some lasting consequences from your successes.  The roll-up to the final check leaves the outcome of the whole situation up to the GM's end narration rather than accruing as you go.




I see. It does seem to be very transactional in that regard for lack of a better word.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Ovinomancer said:


> Turtles all the way down isn't a compelling argument, no.  Of course, no one has suggested that it's turtles all the way down, so....



I mean, there was a turtle (the baron), and then another turtle (the Captain) and according to you the Captain's failure state wasn't discussed, so there could be another turtle under him and so forth.

It's not that this isn't a interesting direction to go. I've said as much. But as a DM who, a long long time ago, was leery of letting characters fail because I wanted them to always feel like Big Damn Heroes, I definitely think it can be overused. Hence the disclaimer. 

Over time I came to recognize that heroes can be defined as much if not more so by their failures as their successes. So nowadays I don't sweat it so much. Although I do think about what might happen if they fail and how to enable progress despite it.


----------



## Lanefan

prabe said:


> Sure. In instances when the a party has all been dealing with someone like that, it's usually been because all the party wanted to be there--and I've let the PCs who wanted to speak, speak, and not beaten up on someone for having a low CHA. So far, no one has tried insulting their way to social success, so I haven't had to deal with this precise problem.



For soem reason I'm reminded of a situation in the game I play in, from a few years back:

We'd rescued two prisoners from somewhere or other, and brought them home with us.  The prisoners were very obviously members of a particular culture whose goal is world domination, i.e. they're everyone's enemy.

My PC had by a mile the worst Charisma in the party (and one of the worst ever seen in our crew!), yet somehow I ended up doing all the diplomacy with these guys once we got home mostly because no other PC was willing to talk to them!  So, in my best gruff beer-soaked smelly-Dwarf way I bought them beers (which I slopped all over them while putting them on the table), sat down with them, and told them how it was gonna be - they were strangers in a strange land, enemies of all they saw, and they'd better make themselves scarce quick because even if we saw them again we'd most likely shoot first and ask questions later using _Speak With Dead_.

We haven't seen them since.  They're probably still running...


----------



## Ovinomancer

iserith said:


> I see. It does seem to be very transactional in that regard for lack of a better word.



I don't mind it.  The structure is that every check along the way changes the fiction in a substantial way, but doesn't individually result in overall success of failure.  So, yes, it is transactional in that each check has an independent pay-off, but it's also cumulative, in that the total number of successes and failures determines the overall result.


----------



## Nagol

Lanefan said:


> Massive disconnect here.
> 
> The PC is being retired by the player thus is (for now or forever) no longer adventuring; but the player still controls what it does in its retirement.  This can be as simple as saying "I stay in town and do spell research for a few years." (which really needs little if any further input from anyone until those few years are up) or as complex as "I hire a ship and a crew and where the map is blank, I go." (which probably means a night in the pub sometime where you and the player determine what becomes of this voyage).
> 
> Reprise his ownership?  Ownership never left the player in the first place!
> 
> Ah...something's beginning to dawn on me here - are you coming from a strict standpoint of "a player may only ever have one PC in the campaign world at a time"?  Because if this is so, there's another big disconnect: as both player and DM I expect players to end up with several (or more!) PCs out there in the game world, of whom one or two are active at any given time.
> 
> In the game I play in, I currently have nine.  One is in the party we'll (I think) be playing tonight.  Another three are in three other active parties, each currently on hold while we play this one.  One is retired for now; one is retired probably forever, but they are both still mine.  One has in effect made herself a hench to another player's PC and if asked I'd hand her over either to that player or the DM.  And two who I had thought were long-term dead were recently found and rescued (one) and revived (the other), so in that party I'll have three active PCs if-when we get back to it, at least for the remainder of that adventure. (I've good in-character reasons to split 'em up afterwards)
> 
> Retiring my PC from adventuring is my choice, and a common enough occurrence. Retiring my control over that PC - particularly if I'm still otherwise in the game - is also my choice and mine alone, and is an extremely rare occurrence. The two choices are not tied together.
> 
> That, and often I'm retiring one PC in order to cycle another back in; and in a year I might reverse the process.  Gets boring playing the same one all the time.
> 
> If that PC's player is still in the game the PC is the player's to control.
> 
> If that PC's player has left the game I'll only use it with the player's permission (if I can contact said player) or I won't use it at all.  The exceptions to this are a) having old characters reappear in something like a dream sequence, that has no lasting impact on anything or b) active PCs touching base with retired characters to keep up friendships, exchange info, and the like.
> 
> Even if that player is still sitting there at the table?
> 
> This touches on a whole different can o' worms, that being adventuring NPCs and their status within the party.  I treat 'em just like PCs, as do the players; mostly because the PCs in the fiction would treat them as just one of the team.
> 
> Again a hard one-PC-per-player stance; I'd almost always allow the player to run both; even more so in this case because it's the other players (as PCs) seeking out that character.




I am not a hard-fast 1 PC per player in many campaigns.  In others, I am, it depends strongly on the table experience I am looking for for a particulalr campaign.

However, I have had poor experiences in the past with particular players seeking extra-special attention / advantages from maintaining a variety of PCs part-time and coordinating their abilities and resources (such as freely sharing magic items and cash) and trying to jump back and forth between PCs in games where that was not the expectation.

You lose ownership of the PC as soon as you utter the words "I'm not playing that character any more."  The immediate inference is "so someone else has to"  so that someone takes complete ownership of that instance of the character.  The former player has no more say -- at all -- in the NPC's actions, reactions, or choices.  It does not matter if the player is sitting at the table every week or left the game  permanently and is 2,000 km away.  Just as I will not tolerate a DM telling me how to run my PC, I won't tolerate a player telling me how to run a NPC.  I may ask for advice, direction, or insight so as to maintain the character's apparent personality, knowledge, and preferences, but that ask is certainly not mandatory.  I may even delegate the NPC to player control to ease my workload, but again that is completely discretionary and subject to change.

Now in a multi-PC game, you can certainly set a PC aside without retiring it, but if it is retired, it becomes a NPC.  If you want it back as a PC, I'll take a look at what's happened to the NPC since it retired and decide if it still fits the campaign before allowing it back.

As an example, in my last 3.5 campaign, the group had a major falling out with their Wizard. and the PC was retired.  He effectively usurped control of what the group wanted to do because only he had the power to travel to and from the adventure locale (a dwarven city cut off since the great devastation) and he didn't want to do that adventure.  The PC did express a strong desire to "get in" with a college of wizards so when the PC was retired, the NPC went off to pursue that goal.

A few members of the party discovered much later that the Wizard was selling tours to that adventure locale to those interested in its history and development.  The player couldn't recover that character as a PC even if he wanted to because his circumstances were so strongly altered between being retired as a PC and what it had become.  (That, and I would not expect the other PCs to accept him back as a member).


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fanaelialae said:


> I mean, there was a turtle (the baron), and then another turtle (the Captain) and according to you the Captain's failure state wasn't discussed, so there could be another turtle under him and so forth.



Again, I think you might want to go and re-read the scene presented by @Manbearcat.  This is not a good summary of that scene, nor are the turtles stacked in any way as you seem to suggest.  The Baron was challenged and the result was that the Captain of the Guard supported the PCs in the resulting narration.  There was only one "turtle" here, the result of the contest between the insulting PC and the Burgomaster.  It was just narrated in a way that added an NPC to the scene in a way beneficial to the PCs because the PC succeeded in that contest.  There is no Captain turtle.



> It's not that this isn't a interesting direction to go. I've said as much. But as a DM who, a long long time ago, was leery of letting characters fail because I wanted them to always feel like Big Damn Heroes, I definitely think it can be overused. Hence the disclaimer.
> 
> Over time I came to recognize that heroes can be defined as much if not more so by their failures as their successes. So nowadays I don't sweat it so much. Although I do think about what might happen if they fail and how to enable progress despite it.



Again, this has nothing to do with @Manbearcat's suggestions nor my follow-ups -- we aren't advocating any such chain at all.  I'm extremely confident that @Manbearcat has no problem leveling painful consequences for failures, nor do I.  We're both fans and advocates of PbtA games, MBC being a fan of Dungeon World, and me primarily of Blades in the Dark.  Both of these games are predicated on failure snowballs driving the action through increasing consequences.  There's very little possibility that following @Manbearcat's suggests would lead to going soft on PC failures unless your adding something to his posts he hasn't advocated.

Your advice is well heeled, and good advice, but you really shouldn't suggest that it's important advice to balance against @Manbearcat's points.  Your advice doesn't address anything he's proposed, except in the general sense that it might apply to anyone as general advice.


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: post text
> 
> 
> 
> For example, in my Sigil game, one of my players has a contact as part of his background that provides side-quests.  This NPC is always helpful, never duplicitous, and always is on the side of the PCs.  This is true because it's a background investment by the player, so it doesn't bite in at all, much like taking a feat shouldn't bite you.  This NPC is a vehicle for the player to engage his PC's goals, and I keep him free of manipulation.  I have a few notes on appearance and mannerisms so it's consistent, but nothing else -- Saul the Fixer will always align to the PC's goals and be a good ally.  I think it's important to have elements of the game that are always PC allied, else the game turns into Suspicion and Paranoia.
> 
> Now, another player's PC has earned a relationship with an Illithid through play, both successes and failures, that is a tenuous ally that clearly has it's own goals.  That relationship is fraught and always a challenge to interact to see if you come away better or worse for the deal.  As an ally, he will usually get a deal that's somewhat beneficial to him (so success is, in some way, baked in), but what he has to pay to get the deal and/or what plots the Illithid advances as part of the deal are open to negotiation.
> 
> These are very different allies, but still examples of two ways I approach allies.  The first is, as noted, part of the PC's backstory, and, as such, is reliable.  The second was earned through play and, as such, can be adversarial even as an ally.  It might be possible to get an ally such as the former through play in my game, but unlikely.  Just as unlikely would be to get an unreliable and fully adverse ally.  Usually, you'll get something like the latter with multiple failures -- in this specific case, the PC is an ex-Illithid thrall trying to reconstruct their past and had made some big failures at crucial points in this quest so has 1) learned that he volunteered to be a thrall (this was consensual, or, at least, the players agreed to the threshold at which I'm able to screw with their backstories prior to play and this player crossed that threshold) and 2) while looking for allies against the Illithids, both failed and succeeded, so he found an ally, but it was a rogue Illithid with an uncertain agenda that has resources and knowledge that aid the PC.  Yup, I'm beating on this PC pretty hard.  He likes it.



Sure, those are both very fair examples. Once you're talking about allies the stakes are markedly different, at least in terms of there being a pre-existing relationship and some expectations on the part of the players, even if things didn't start out like that.  I probably should have been more specific - the thread has been talking about encountered-in-play NPCs, and that was more what I was indexing, not allies and patrons, or even recurring enemies. In the case of known NPCs the players already have all the handles they need for SI to flow naturally, and the DM has the option to play things differently to show that there is a problem or change in behaviour. With the other sort of NPC the players have none of those handles, and thus they play differently, and the GM needs to use different tools.


----------



## Lanefan

Nagol said:


> I am not a hard-fast 1 PC per player in many campaigns.  In others, I am, it depends strongly on the table experience I am looking for for a particulalr campaign.
> 
> However, I have had poor experiences in the past with particular players seeking extra-special attention / advantages from maintaining a variety of PCs part-time and coordinating their abilities and resources (such as freely sharing magic items and cash) and trying to jump back and forth between PCs in games where that was not the expectation.



Yes, unless there's a good in-fiction reason for a player's own PCs to get along or at least know each other unusually well (e.g. they're brother and sister, which has been done), I tend to frown on such things.



> You lose ownership of the PC as soon as you utter the words "I'm not playing that character any more."  The immediate inference is "so someone else has to"



If this happens while in town or downtime, no.  Nobody else has to, and moreover nobody else is allowed to IMO unless the player approves.

If this happens while the party's in mid-adventure (usually due to a player having to drop out of the game suddenly, life happens) then the character becomes what we call a QPC (Quasi-Player Character) for the rest of that adventure, and is run in effect by committee of the remaining players.  At the next reasonable opportunity, that QPC is eased into retirement as above.



> so that someone takes complete ownership of that instance of the character.  The former player has no more say -- at all -- in the NPC's actions, reactions, or choices.  It does not matter if the player is sitting at the table every week or left the game  permanently and is 2,000 km away.  Just as I will not tolerate a DM telling me how to run my PC, I won't tolerate a player telling me how to run a NPC.



We're never going to agree on this, because a player's PC is and remains a player's PC no matter what.

The player is telling you how to run his-her PC.



> Now in a multi-PC game, you can certainly set a PC aside without retiring it, but if it is retired, it becomes a NPC.  If you want it back as a PC, I'll take a look at what's happened to the NPC since it retired and decide if it still fits the campaign before allowing it back.
> 
> As an example, in my last 3.5 campaign, the group had a major falling out with their Wizard. and the PC was retired.  He effectively usurped control of what the group wanted to do because only he had the power to travel to and from the adventure locale (a dwarven city cut off since the great devastation) and he didn't want to do that adventure.  The PC did express a strong desire to "get in" with a college of wizards so when the PC was retired, the NPC went off to pursue that goal.
> 
> A few members of the party discovered much later that the Wizard was selling tours to that adventure locale to those interested in its history and development.  The player couldn't recover that character as a PC even if he wanted to because his circumstances were so strongly altered between being retired as a PC and what it had become.  (That, the I would not expect the other PCs to accept him back as a member).



Do that to me as a player and the next thing you'd hear is the door closing behind me as I left the game.

You. Just. Can't. Do that.

Now had you-as-DM and I-as-player sat down at some point and updated that PC and during that process it developed that I was selling tours of the adventure locale, that's cool!  But you can't just unilaterally decide this stuff - it's not your character - particularly if those decisions make further play of said PC impossible.

And yes, circumstances alter when you don't see someone for a while in reality - why should it be any different for a PC who's been out of a party for a while?


----------



## Fenris-77

Yeah, the DM doesn't get to play with my character just because I'm not currently playing it. It's the only bit of the game a player actually has ownership of, and you can have mine when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.


----------



## Imaculata

Ovinomancer said:
			
		

> That's a bad NPC, especially one that the module creates as a nearly guaranteed interaction point, and the leader of the best base of operations in the game.  The Burgomaster is a trap, not for the players, but for the GM.  It takes deft skill and experience to realize when and how to toss or modify the Burgomaster.






billd91 said:


> Clearly we have a difference of opinion. Not every NPC needs to be swayable or manipulable by the PCs or have layers of texture. Some are simply obstacles and annoyances. And that's fine, not a trap.




I agree with both of you, but I think I'm somewhere in the middle. I agree that the Burgomaster is underwritten (based on the summary that was posted), and that running him perhaps requires a bit too much from the DM, leaving the door wide open for dreadful mistakes. However, I also think that it is fine for a campaign to have unswayable pure blackhat npc's. Not every npc needs to be complex. But I wonder what the point of the Burgomaster encounter is (I haven't read or played this particular adventure). It sounds almost like he is purely there to force a conflict on the players.

Like Iserith, I use a slider for my npc's during social encounters, although the slider is not literally visible. However, I do communicate to my players whenever an npc is swayed by their arguments, or when they anger the npc. It is important for the players to know when they are making progress, or losing progress during a social encounter. I also point out nuances during social encounters, such as an npc being disinterested, highly negative or very passionate about a topic. It is important that the players get some clues regarding what an npc cares about, so they can make an informed choice regarding what they say to the npc.

Some npc's may already start out with a negative view of the players, making them much harder to sway. While others may already be friendly to the players, making them far easier to negotiate with. And there may be some topics that a particular npc is impossible to sway on, which I always point out to the players during the encounter so they can move on. I also keep track of so called loyalty quests for various factions (an idea I stole straight out of Mass Effect), to progress the attitude of a group of npc's further to the positive. The opposite is also possible, where certain quest outcomes will permanently make some factions hostile to them.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> Sure, those are both very fair examples. Once you're talking about allies the stakes are markedly different, at least in terms of there being a pre-existing relationship and some expectations on the part of the players, even if things didn't start out like that.  I probably should have been more specific - the thread has been talking about encountered-in-play NPCs, and that was more what I was indexing, not allies and patrons, or even recurring enemies. In the case of known NPCs the players already have all the handles they need for SI to flow naturally, and the DM has the option to play things differently to show that there is a problem or change in behaviour. With the other sort of NPC the players have none of those handles, and thus they play differently, and the GM needs to use different tools.



Firstly, I again disagree with your observations about allies being different from other NPCs.  Just because an NPC is currently friendly doesn't mean they aren't a source of social interaction challenges.  Nor does an NPC being friendly imply that the PC's have all the handles necessary.  In fact, the second NPC I described in my post doesn't match this at all -- it is an ally, in that it's a source of succor for the PC, but always tries to extract a price for it's aid, which is always a social conflict.  Anytime that PC interacts with this ally, there's a social challenge involved, and, trust me, the PC does not have all of the handles necessary.  If that's the case, that NPC is "solved" and, as you note, only again becomes interesting if the GM changes the NPC into behaving in non-"solved" ways.  There are many points in-between.

Secondly, my disagreement was with the blanket statement that all NPCs must be manipulable or become such as play is followed.  This has little to do with status as ally or opponent.  I still disagree with this.  Some NPCs can exist solely as foils, not offering any changes but there to offset a PC only.  Some might just be the fictional representation of a routine game mechanic interaction -- such as the reliably bombastic but non-challenging NPC promoter of the Sigil pit-fighting championship that's part of the expanded downtime rules for my campaign.  As such, he's only flavor to enhance the mechanics of the downtime pit-fighting option (yeah, I have pit-fighting as a downtime activity, it's been a blast).  There is interaction, but it's not confrontational in any way.

Perhaps we're sailing past each other on this, but I think you're trying to make a narrow point and I'm seeing a broad one.  To that end, I disagree with you if you're making a broad point, but do not necessarily disagree on the narrow one.  Perhaps that helps?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Imaculata said:


> I agree with both of you, but I think I'm somewhere in the middle. I agree that the Burgomaster is underwritten (based on the summary that was posted), and that running him perhaps requires a bit too much from the DM, leaving the door wide open for dreadful mistakes. However, I also think that it is fine for a campaign to have unswayable pure blackhat npc's. Not every npc needs to be complex. But I wonder what the point of the Burgomaster encounter is (I haven't read or played this particular adventure). It sounds almost like he is purely there to force a conflict on the players.
> 
> Like Iserith, I use a slider for my npc's during social encounters, although the slider is not literally visible. However, I do communicate to my players whenever an npc is swayed by their arguments, or when they anger the npc. It is important for the players to know when they are making progress, or losing progress during a social encounter.



Yeah, I don't mind pure blackhats at all.  You have to have villains, right?  However, as you note, how the Burgomaster in CoS is presented is almost guaranteed (and by this I mean it would be exceptional play to avoid it without changing it) to be a point of conflict.  And, as written, it's presented as if it should be a social conflict (civilian authority figure in a town the PCs are inclined to find as a temporary home in a hostile land).  But, it's not, it's a fixed point that's not amenable to the PC's attempt to find a better way, and written to result in banishment if they try.  The Burgomaster is poorly written and a bad encounter in an otherwise mostly great module.

Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of CoS, and I even like a lot of the surrounding fiction for the Burgomaster.  However, as written, he's not a good NPC or encounter.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> Every class can start at 1st level with any proficiency the player wants.  Backgrounds give 2 proficiencies and if you don't like what the pre-made backgrounds give, you can just create a background with whichever 2 you want.




Yeah I know. I thought I was clear, but I’ll be more specific. The Fighter class does not grant the option for proficiency with any Charisma based skills other than Intimidation. 

Yes, Backgrounds and Multiclassintg might grant additional options, but based on the way character design works, I’d expect far fewer Fighters to have a skill like Persuasion or Deception. 


My point simply being how some classes are far more geared for the social pillar than others in a much more significant way than any disparity in combat efficacy.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Ovinomancer said:


> not a good NPC or encounter.



Summary for most 5e NPCs in adventure books, nowadays.


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> The example of Gimli and Legolas talking to Eomer is a great example. I have a very different reading of that exchange than some of the ones that have appeared upstream. The whole of LotR is very rooted in Saxon and Norse myth and culture, and the responses of both Legolas and Gimli in that exchange are 'heroic' in that they show Eomer something about the mettle of the two, a measure of their character as it were. Eomer is a warrior, and when he sees that both Legolas and Gimli are also warriors, that they adhere to something like the same code of conduct and speech acts, which in this case specifically does not brook insult, he sees them as worthy - hence the gift of horses.



I'm pretty familiar with LotR and its sources. I've just finished (re)reading Shippey's _The Road to Middle Earth_.

What is the social framework in Curse of Strahd? Some blend of generic renaissance and Gothic horror? Where in that genre is it established that when heroic warriors voice their condemnation of a mad tyrant he calls for the guards (like King John in Robin Hood) as opposed to (say) curls up in shame, or tries to extricate himself via weaselly words?



Fenris-77 said:


> The thing that's really at issue is dialogue with intent, where there there is a particular desired outcome of the action in question, and that outcome is in some doubt. This is a sticky topic to use examples from books for, because in those cases the author generally knows what the outcome is and it isn't in doubt.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Modelling social interaction in LotR generally is hard for most TTRPGs because their base assumptions about the meaning of actions, and what matters in a given exchange, can be very different than model(s) Tolkien was working with.





prabe said:


> The sorts of social interactions that authors write are different enough, at a level close to if not at the core, from the sorts of social interactions that play out around a TRPG table that I do not think *any* TRPG ruleset can replicate the social interactions from *any* source material. It is plausible that the players around a table can intentionally ape the interactions in LotR or Star Wars, but it's not necessary that they do so--and even if they did, the end results of four or five people ad-libbing dialogue around the table would be different from those of one author writing and rewriting and rewriting.



These claims are, in my view, just false.

It's not difficult to have social interaction at a RPG table that will evoke the genres on which D&D (and other FRPGs) purport to be based. Of course the dialogue won't be as polished as edited material - that's true of all aspects of RPGing, given that it is spontaneous and multi-authored. But that lack of polish doesn't mean that the basic dynamic and flavour isn't there.

Over the past several years I've played four different FRPGs: 4e D&D, Burning Wheel, Cortex+ Heroic (a hack of Marvel Heroic RP) and Prince Valiant. Those games have seen social interaction that resembles or evokes the source material. 

From 4e D&D:



pemerton said:


> The current focus of my 4e game - which is now at 30th level, the top end of Epic tier - is the fate of the multiverse: will it be engulfed in an imminent Dusk War, or is there some way of averting such a thing?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> They decided that, to return to the mortal world to confront the tarrasque they would first teleport to their abandoned Thundercloud Tower
> 
> <snip>
> 
> When the PCs step through the portal from their resting place to the top of the tower, they find that it is not where they left it - on the disintegrating 66th layer of the Abyss - but rather in the palace of Yan-C-Bin on the Elemental Chaos. This brought the PCs, and especially the chaos sorcerer, into discussion with the djinni who had retaken possession of the tower and were repurposing it for the coming Dusk War. Mechanically, this situation was resolved as a skill challenge.
> 
> Sirrajadt, the leader of the djinni, explained that the djinni were finally breaking free of the imprisonment they had suffered after fighting for their freedom the last time (ie with the primordials against the gods in the Dawn War), and were not going to be re-imprisoned or bound within the Lattice of Heaven, and hence were gearing up to fight again in the Dusk War. He further explained that only Yan-C-Bin (Prince of Evil Air Elementals) and the Elder Elemental Eye could lead them to victory in the Dusk War.
> 
> The PCs both asserted their power (eg the paladin pointed out that the reason the djinni have been released from their prisons is because the PCs killed Torog, the god of imprisonment), and denied the necessity for a coming Dusk War, denouncing warmongers on both sides (especially the Elder Elemental Eye, whom Sirrajadt was stating was the only being who could guarantee the Djinni their freedom) and announcing themselves as a "third way", committed to balancing the chaos against the heavens and ensuring the endurance of the mortal world.
> 
> Sirrajadt was insisting that the PCs accompany him to meet Yan-C-Bin, declaring that mercy would be shown to all but the sorcerer. (The reason for this is that the chaos sorcerer - who is a Primordial Adept and Resurgent Primordial - has long been a servant of Chan, the Queen of Good Air Elementals, who sided with the gods during the Dawn War and is resolutely opposed to the Prince of Evil Air Elementals; hence the sorcerer is a sworn enemy of Yan-C-Bin.) As the PCs continued to debate the point and explain their "third way" reasoning (mechanically, getting closer to success in the skill challenge), Sirrajadt - sufficiently unsettled by their claims - invited them all to resolve the matter in conversation with Yan-C-Bin, who moreso than him would be able to explain the situation. The PCs therefore went to meet Yan-C-Bin himself, as guests and not as prisoners - not even the sorcerer.
> 
> Yan-C-Bin greeted them, but mocked the sorcerer and his service to Chan. There was some back and forth, and some of the same points were made. Then the PC fighter/cleric Eternal Defender, who has recently taken up the divine portfolio of imprisonment (which position became vacant after the PCs killed Torog), spoke. Both in the fiction and at the table this was the pivotal moment. The player gave an impassioned and quite eloquent speech, which went for several minutes with his eyes locked on mine. (We tend to be quite a causal table as far as performance, in-character vs third person description of one's PC vs out-of-character goes.) He explained (in character) that he would personally see to it that no djinni would be unjustly imprisoned, if they now refrained from launching the Dusk War; but that if they acted rashly and unjustly they could look forward to imprisonment or enslavement forever.
> 
> The player rolled his Intimidate check (with a +2 bonus granted by me because of his speech, far more impassioned and "in character" than is typical for our pretty laid-back table) and succeeded. It didn't persuade Yan-C-Bin - his allegiance to the Elder Elemental Eye is not going to be swayed by a mere godling - but the players' goal wasn't to persaude Yan-C-Bin of the merits of their third way, but rather to avoid being imprisoned by him and to sway the djinni. Which is exacty what happened: this speech sufficiently impressed the djinni audience that Yan-C-Bin could not just ignore it, and hence he grudgingly acquiesced to the PCs' request, agreeing to let the PCs take the Thundercloud Tower and go and confront the tarrasque - but expressing doubt that they would realise their "third way", and with a final mocking remark that they would see for whom the maruts with the tarrasque were acting.




From Cortex+ Heroic:



pemerton said:


> the group travelled to the north, gradually climbing through the foothills ever higher towards the snow-capped peaks. In spring and summer the more adventurous herders might be found here running their animals upon the pasture, but in the autumn there were no humans about.
> 
> Cresting a ridge and looking down into the valley below, they can see - at the base of the rise on the opposite side - a large steading. Very large indeed, as they approach it, with 15' walls, doors 10' high and 8' wide, etc. And with a terrible smell. (Scene distinctions: Large Steading, Reeks of Smoke and Worse.) After some discussion of whether or not giants are friends or foes, the swordthan decides to knock at the gates and seek permission to enter. Some dice rolls later and he has a d6 Invitation to Enter asset, and a giant (I used the Guide's Ogre datafile) opens the gate and invites him in.
> 
> Meanwhile (I can't quite remember the action order) the scout has climbed up onto the top of the pallisade, gaining an Overview of the Steading asset, and the troll has remembered tales of Loge the giant chieftain, gaining a Knowledge of Loge asset. And the berserker - who has the Deeds, Not Words milestone which grants 1 XP when he acts on impulse - charged through the open gate at the giant, inflicting d12 physical stress.
> 
> But the swordthane - who was hoping to learn more about his quest - used his Defender SFX to take the physical stress onto himself (in the fiction, stepping between giant and berserker and grabbing hold of the latter's axe mid-chop). And the berserker - whose player was happily taking 3 XP for being rebuked by an ally for his violence - calmed down.
> 
> The next action cycle took place in the main hall of the steading, into which the PCs were led by the giant at the gate. I drew heavily on the G1 thematic here - all but one of the players was familiar with it. And I got to add in my third scene distinction - Great Wolves under the trestle tables and gnawing on bones at the sides of the hall.
> 
> I'm not going to remember all the details of this one, but highlights included: the swordthane opening up negotations with Loge, the giant chief, including - in response to a demand for tribute - offering up the steed as a gift; the scout, after successfully parlaying his Overview of the Steading asset into a Giant Ox in the Barn asset, leading the ox into the hall and trying to trade it for the return of the horse, and failing (despite the giant chief's Slow distinction counting as a d4), and subsequently avoiding being eaten (a stepped-up Put in Mouth complication, as per the Giant datafile in the Guide) only by wedging the giant's mouth open with his knife (a heavily PP-pumped reaction roll); and the swordthane successfully opening a d6 Social resource (based on his Social Expertise) in the form of a giant shaman in the hall, who agreed that the troubles plaguing the human lands were afflicting the giants too, and so they should help one another.
> 
> In the end, the PCs succeeded in stepping up their Persuaded to Help complication on Loge above d12, and so he relented and decided to befriend them rather than try and eat them.




From Prince Valiant:



pemerton said:


> There was talk of a powerful knight who was blocking the road north, not letting anyone pass who was unable to beat him in battle - and so far unbeaten. (This was Sir Lionheart, of the second Challenge from a Knight scenario in the rulebook.) Naturally the PCs headed off to see if they could do better, with a crowd in tow to see the excitement and the [PC] performer working the crowd.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The [squire] PC asked for a joust, but the proud Sir Lionheart declined to joust with a mere squire. To which the PC responded, "Fine, I'll just continue on my way then!" and tried to pass Sir Lionheart and continue along the road. This called for a Presence vs Presence check, which the PC won - and so Sir Lionheart knighted him so that he could joust and perhaps succeed where the others had failed. I took the words of the knight ceremony from Excalibur - "In the name of God, St Michael and St George I give you the right to bear arms and the power to mete justice".
> 
> The player of the (now) Sir Morgath determined that he would use his certificate for an outright victory. He considered knocking Sir Lionheart senseless, but he suspected (correctly, as it turned out, given the scenario description) that if he unhorsed Sir Lionheart but didn't kill him, Sir Lionheart would insist on fighting with swords to the death. So he decided to Kill a Foe in Combat - when the lances of the two knights connected, the one wielded by Sir Morgath splintered, and a shard flew through a gap in  Sir Lionheart's visor and entered his brain through his eye, killing him!
> 
> Sir Morgath was feted by the crowd. He also was able to upgrade his gear, being the first of the PCs to have heavy armour and a warhorse. He also won Sir Lionheart's superbly jewelled sword, which grants a bonus die for social situations where prestige is in issue.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> they continued north to see what adventures might be had! On the road, they met a richly-dressed damsel, Lady Elizabeth of York, and her handmaiden, who had barely escaped from bandits while returning home from a pilgrimage to the shrine of St Sigobert. She asked for assistance, and the PCs offered it.
> 
> The introduction to the scenario notes that "An amusing use of this Episode is to get one of the Adventurers married off to the main character" and goes on to say that "Once [she] feels safe she will begin to flirt with the Adventurers, prying for information on marriage status, lands held, family, etc. During this scene she picks a candidate for marriage, if possible, from the Adventurers. Depending on the way you wish to run the Episode, the victim may consider himself lucky, or cursed". Sir Morgath, with his knightly armour, his jewelled sword, and his famous victory over Sir Lionheart, was the object of her pursuit.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> When the group arrived back at the castle of the Duke of York, he was very impressed by the young and obviously valiant Sir Morgath. An attempt by Sir Morgath to persuade the Duke that he might not be the best match for his daughter failed (ie Sir Morgath's player rolled poorly) and so he found himself being wed to Lady Elizabeth rather than the Lady Violette whose handkerchief he had been carrying with him.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> So he started the session a squire, and ended up a famous knight married to the daughter of the Duke of York!



I would add: this last post shows that there is no tension or conflict between using prepared material - both the knight and the lady scenarios were taken straight from the rulebook - and having social interaction that does not involve a script or a puzzle or a "face" character.


----------



## pemerton

Fanaelialae said:


> the module says he runs them out of town if they anger him does suggest otherwise for the default way of handling it.



What level is the tyrant? What level are his guards? What level are the PCs?

Upthread @hawkeyefan implied that the answers to these questions don't favour the NPC - ie perhaps he can _try_ and run the PCs out of town, but may lack the actual capacity to do so.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> Yeah, the DM doesn't get to play with my character just because I'm not currently playing it. It's the only bit of the game a player actually has ownership of, and you can have mine when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.



Are you talking about a situation where you have multiple active PCs in a game?  If so, I agree -- the PCs are active and I should retain control over them.  If you're talking about an inactive PC -- retired or just swapped out for a different PC in a one-PC-at-a-time game, then... no?  Inactive PCs are ones the player has decided to not play anymore, and, to me, if you're not playing the character, it's no longer a Player Character.

Exceptions exist for specific agreements, of course, like retiring a character because they conflict with another character but wanting to keep the PC around to return to if they other PC changes substantially or leaves the game (in a D&D style game).


----------



## hawkeyefan

Imaculata said:


> I agree with both of you, but I think I'm somewhere in the middle. I agree that the Burgomaster is underwritten (based on the summary that was posted), and that running him perhaps requires a bit too much from the DM, leaving the door wide open for dreadful mistakes. However, I also think that it is fine for a campaign to have unswayable pure blackhat npc's. Not every npc needs to be complex. But I wonder what the point of the Burgomaster encounter is (I haven't read or played this particular adventure). It sounds almost like he is purely there to force a conflict on the players.
> 
> Like Iserith, I use a slider for my npc's during social encounters, although the slider is not literally visible. However, I do communicate to my players whenever an npc is swayed by their arguments, or when they anger the npc. It is important for the players to know when they are making progress, or losing progress during a social encounter. I also point out nuances during social encounters, such as an npc being disinterested, highly negative or very passionate about a topic. It is important that the players get some clues regarding what an npc cares about, so they can make an informed choice regarding what they say to the npc.
> 
> Some npc's may already start out with a negative view of the players, making them much harder to sway. While others may already be friendly to the players, making them far easier to negotiate with. And there may be some topics that a particular npc is impossible to sway on, which I always point out to the players during the encounter so they can move on. I also keep track of so called loyalty quests for various factions (an idea I stole straight out of Mass Effect), to progress the attitude of a group of npc's further to the positive. The opposite is also possible, where certain quest outcomes will permanently make some factions hostile to them.




I’m not crazy about the Baron because I do see how it could be challenging for a newer DM to mishandle him. But I think that Vallaki can be a very interesting locale, and the Baron can be an interesting part of that. But to be so, a DM will need to add a bit of their own take to it.

Also, if he’s viewed as simply an obstacle, that’s fine too. 

He’s a bit of a missed opportunity as presented, without some additional info to help DMs mold him as needed.


----------



## Ovinomancer

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Summary for most 5e NPCs in adventure books, nowadays.



Overly harsh, there's lots of good in most of the adventures.  It's just littered with points like the Burgomaster where things can go badly even with good faith play.


----------



## Fenris-77

@Ovinomancer - I think you're pretty drastically misunderstanding what I meant by 'all the handles'. Sorry if that's my poor explanation. I don't mean all you need to successfully get what you want. I just meant you know the NPC, have some idea about his motivations and likely actions and responses to certain kinds of queries or proffers. It doesn't matter if they're friendly or not. The history the PC has with that NPC provides a wealth of information to help smooth out and rationalize SI with that NPC. The PCs have an idea how to interact before they begin.

In the case of the NPCs I am actually talking about the PCs have none of that info, and are thus working in a much shallower information environment. It's on the GM to_ somehow_ provide the PCs with some (any) information about that NPCs motivations, or objections, or whatever. The more handles the PCs have, the more directed and dynamic their actions can be.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> @Ovinomancer - I think you're pretty drastically misunderstanding what I meant by 'all the handles'. Sorry if that's my poor explanation. I don't mean all you need to successfully get what you want. I just meant you know the NPC, have some idea about his motivations and likely actions and responses to certain kinds of queries or proffers. It doesn't matter if they're friendly or not. The history the PC has with that NPC provides a wealth of information to help smooth out and rationalize SI with that NPC. The PCs have an idea how to interact before they begin.
> 
> In the case of the NPCs I am actually talking about the PCs have none of that info, and are thus working in a much shallower information environment. It's on the GM to_ somehow_ provide the PCs with some (any) information about that NPCs motivations, or objections, or whatever. The more handles the PCs have, the more directed and dynamic their actions can be.



Yeah, no, I totally didn't get 'you need to provide some handle for the PCs to interact with new NPCs' from your previous posts.  That's an innocuously true statement.  Failure to properly frame any encounter is always going to lead to trouble.


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> Are you talking about a situation where you have multiple active PCs in a game?  If so, I agree -- the PCs are active and I should retain control over them.  If you're talking about an inactive PC -- retired or just swapped out for a different PC in a one-PC-at-a-time game, then... no?  Inactive PCs are ones the player has decided to not play anymore, and, to me, if you're not playing the character, it's no longer a Player Character.
> 
> Exceptions exist for specific agreements, of course, like retiring a character because they conflict with another character but wanting to keep the PC around to return to if they other PC changes substantially or leaves the game (in a D&D style game).



No, I meant period. I do realize that not everyone agrees with that stance, but lots do. I'm not giving up my 'rights' to that PC just because it isn't currently being played, for whatever reason. In some cases, like I've moved away and will never play with those people again I'd be fine with it, but I'd still want to talk to the DM about it. I can't think of too many reason why I'd deny a DM the request to use my character as an NPC. but that really isn't the point. 

It's not about it being a player character really, it's about it being _my_ character, played or not. Different strokes though, for sure.


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> Yeah, no, I totally didn't get 'you need to provide some handle for the PCs to interact with new NPCs' from your previous posts.  That's an innocuously true statement.  Failure to properly frame any encounter is always going to lead to trouble.



I can smell your mockery.   If it were so innocuous and easy, it would get done every time and we wouldn't have this thread. Sadly though, it doesn't get done all the time, even by professional writers, never mind by homebrewing GMs, who have a lot on their plate. Also, the quality of the handles makes a big difference. So I guess that is innocuously true if you wanted to ignore all the context, example and detail I've provided over the last few pages.


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> NPCs are a little like traps. They really should involve some telegraphing and foreshadowing, and they kinda suck when they're essentially a black box. Motivations and objections are key to social interaction, and I personally don't see the value in making the players constantly play 20 questions to figure them out.



A trap is a static threat.

NPCs are not static. The are (in the fiction) human beings with all the complexity and dynamism that implies; and (in the play of the game) characters around whom the action will pivot.

And NPCs are _opportunities_, not threats. That's why one can encounter a warband leader (let's call him Eomer) who is carrying out his sworn duty to detain you, and have the encounter end up in him releasing you with a loan of horses. That's why alies can become enemies (eg Saruman) and enemies allies (eg Magneto).

So I think the comparison to traps is not that helpful. In saying this I take myself to be in agreement with some recent posts from FrogReaver, and with some posts further upthread by @hawkeyefan.


----------



## Fanaelialae

pemerton said:


> What level is the tyrant? What level are his guards? What level are the PCs?
> 
> Upthread @hawkeyefan implied that the answers to these questions don't favour the NPC - ie perhaps he can _try_ and run the PCs out of town, but may lack the actual capacity to do so.



The baron is a noble. He has 2 mastiffs, a CR 5 henchman, 24 guards, and can raise a mob of 30 commoners. His wife is a commoner and his son is a mage. MM stats for everyone except the henchman.

Obviously not all of those are present at once. I think in the case of the meeting, he has the mastiffs, the henchman, and 12 guards. Depending on the levels of the PCs, particularly given that 2 PCs were abstaining from conflict (leaving only 2 PCs) that could certainly be an unwinnable encounter.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> I'd go even further and simply have the NPC ask other PCs about things because that's generally how conversations work. Even in a situation like this where there may be protocols and etiquette to follow. Why wouldn't the NPC ever think "hmmm they've no doubt asked the bard to state their case because he's a smooth talker.....let me see what this sneering brute over here has to say"? I mean, the OP makes an appeal to what's realistic, but expects certain party members to keep their mouths shut for purely gamist reasons.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> if a preference for "realism" is cited, I'd kind of expect that preference to apply throughout the encounter, and not just to the outcome.



Right. I think I posted the same thing upthread.

The idea of the many-headed hyrda (or Voltron as you said not far upthread) is about as artificial as it gets. Outside of the con/heist genre  - which Ravenloft if not as best I understand it - where is there adventure/action fiction in which only "the face" speaks?


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> * The NPC calls for his Captain to arrest this fool.  The Captain (who suddenly becomes the intersection of the PCs successful check, the Baron's Flaw, and the setting at large) pauses and says "...he says nothing different than what the people are saying in the safety and privacy of their homes sir...arresting him will not sanitize that image...it will further sully it."  After which, the Baron clearly shrinks and blanches while he gathers himself (after which the GM will either reframe the conflict with his next move from the Baron or another NPC present, or a player can make a follow-up move to reframe things).





Manbearcat said:


> The fact that you've invoked "aimed at the Captain" is a not-so-subtle indicator that you're not quite understanding how the dynamics of this work.  Neither the player in their action declaration nor the PC within the fiction are "aiming their words at the Captain."  What is happening is deft GMing.  You need an emergent consequence which honors the players success while simultaneously honoring the nature of the situation and the component parts of the fiction.  The gamestate and the fiction need to change positively.  How are those two changed positively?  The GM evolves the post-resolution fiction to put the Baron and the Captain at odds, thus stealing some of the Baron's boldness and, in the case of 5e D&D, revealing the nature of their relationship, thus providing an asset (the Bond) for the players to deploy in subsequent action declarations.





prabe said:


> PC declares (roughly) "I try to talk the Mad Tyrant out of arresting us."
> 
> GM says, "The Captain says ..."
> 
> So, having the PC's success on a check affect a character other than the one the player intended--and declared--is ... an awful lot like taking control of the character away from the player.
> 
> Also, from the description of the event, the Captain wasn't there to hear the insult, so all he knows is the Mad Tyrant is ordering the PCs taken away in irons.
> 
> Sorry, no sale.



Huh?

In the OP: the player declares an action aimed at the tyrant (the insult), the action fails to achieve some sort of success (eg cowing the tyrant - we don't know whether the GM decided that by fiat or called for a check that failed), and then the guards turn up. The guards are part of the narration of failure.

In Manbearcat's example: the player declares an action aimed at the tyran (the insult), the action _achives success_ (ie changes the mind of the tyrant, by cowing him) and the GM uses the guards as part of the narration of that change of mind - the success manifests via the trusted lieutenant whose words induce shame. As he puts it, "You need an emergent consequence which honors the players success while simultaneously honoring the nature of the situation and the component parts of the fiction."

This is no different, its basic structure, from narrating a successful attack as invovling the enemy stumbling on a stone and loosing his/her footing. Or as per my Prince Valiant post not far upthread, narrating the lance splintering and a shard of wood going through the visor split and into the brain of the NPC knight, killing him.

Manbearcat calls it _deft GMing_, and is correct. The GM takes control of that stuff which is his/hers - the NPCs - and uses those to change the ficiton in a way that honours the player's success. It's pretty much the opposite of what I see in the OP and much of the ensuing discussion, which involves the GM focusing intently on only one aspect of his/her stuff - the tyrant - and using that to ensure that the player can't get what s/he wants out of the situation.

My reference much earlier to the possibility of the guards being drunk, or disloyal in the fact of yet another manifestation of madness, are in the same ballpark as what Manbearcat has suggested. I think it's not a coincidence that we've both fastened on the guards: because these are crucial for the tyrant to actually act in the scene, but within the context of the fiction they are human beings with their own motivations which need not conform at all to those of their ostensible master. (Qv Emoer and Faramir disobeying direct instructions from their lords and kinsmen to detain strangers.)

EDIT: some of this was already said by @Ovinomancer upthread.

Also saw this:


Fanaelialae said:


> Conversely, overuse can lead to scenarios where there is no fail state or real consequences. Work with the Baron and you get what you need. Anger him and you still get what you need.



You seem to be ignoring the difference between successful and failed checks. @Manbearcat was describing a possible narration of a successful check.


----------



## pemerton

billd91 said:


> Not every NPC needs to be swayable or manipulable by the PCs



Why not?

Every orc is killable. (By application of the combat rules.)

Every forest is passable. (By application of the exploration and movement rules.)

Why is every NPC not influlencable?

Of course some orcs won't be killed - they have too many hp, or the players just roll very poorly.

And some forest won't be passed - the players fail their CON/exhaustion-type checks, fail their WIS/Survivial or whatever checks, or whatever is appropriate.

But those are _outcomes _of the action resolution procedures. Why shoul NPCs be different?



Fanaelialae said:


> If the check against the Captain fails, should the characters now be given a chance to convince the guards to turn against their Captain? If they fail against the guards, should they have a chance to convince the servants to rise up against the guards? None of that is entirely unreasonable, but it's also not something that necessarily desirable.



What does _desirable _mean here?

What is undesirable about the players declaring actions for their PCs to try and change the fiction?

Whether the fiction _permits_ what you describe is a further question. Eg if the PCs and relevant NPCs aren't in the same room then they will need telepathy or the post if they are going to communicate. But that's about fictional positioning, not about _desirability_.

Depending on the system, and hence how situations are framed and how the lesser NPCs figure as part of the situation, there may also be finality rules that apply. But D&D isn't a system that uses very form framing of situations, and nor does it have terribly strict rules about finality. So if the PCs can contrive to talk to the servants ,and instigate their revolt, I don't see what the problem is.

(The closest thing I can think of in my recent play was when the PCs in my Prince Valiant game conquered a castle in Burgundy leading their small warband at the head of a spontaneous peasant uprising. It was quite exciting.)


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

pemerton said:


> Why is every NPC not influlencable?



I was just about to make a joke, but realized it would be taken down immediately. 

Some NPCs are increasingly stubborn. There's also a point to where each NPC will do something. Try to persuade the king to commit suicide, and it's probably not going to happen. 

I agree, all NPCs can be persuaded to do things, but there is a line. A lot of NPCs cannot be persuaded to do certain things, I think their point was.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> You seem to be ignoring the difference between successful and failed checks. @Manbearcat was describing a possible narration of a successful check.




And there were successful checks, or at least one, and the PCs that walked away walked away. That's how the OP described it. They just happened after the insult, which in the OP's telling didn't sound like any sort of attempt to alter the thinking of anyone. It didn't even sound as though it was an attempt to intimidate, to me.

Is part of this that you think the insult was an action, which should have succeeded? No, because you describe it as a failure.

It seemed to me as though that was narrating success by describing the actions of an NPC who hadn't seen the events in the OP's incident. Whom the PCs would not have been attempting to influence--could not have been attempting to influence. In spite of whatever the action declarations had been. If I say, "My character attempts to talk the Mad Tyrant out of executing Mr. Insulty," and you say, "The Captain, coming into the room, turns to the BurgerMaster and says (paraphrasing) 'I will not obey you, sir,' " I will at the least be confused as to why effect aimed at the BurgerMaster seems to have hit the Captain. You have (metaphorically) moved my hand from one target to another *that was not there when I declared my action.* That doesn't seem deft, it seems clumsy as hell.

It also looked to me as though there was some editing of the BurgerMaster--which is totally fine, even if those traits, et al. were maybe not entirely consistent with what I've gathered of the published adventure. I was, I'm afraid, engaged in a little light mockery when I invented similar tags for the invented NPC (the Captain) that made it easy to shift the events back in the direction of the OP's incident; the point, to the extent I had one, is that it is trivially easy to shift the story by rewriting NPCs, if you want to.


----------



## pemerton

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Some NPCs are increasingly stubborn. There's also a point to where each NPC will do something. Try to persuade the king to commit suicide, and it's probably not going to happen.



Maybe, maybe not. It might depend on the king's prior dispostion.

But in any event I didn't express a view on whether or not any NPC can be influenced to do anything. I wondered why some NPCs are immune to all influence.



AcererakTriple6 said:


> A lot of NPCs cannot be persuaded to do certain things, I think their point was.



In that case they'll clarify. That wasn't what they wrote, and I don't think it's what they meant.


----------



## Fenris-77

pemerton said:


> A trap is a static threat.
> 
> NPCs are not static. The are (in the fiction) human beings with all the complexity and dynamism that implies; and (in the play of the game) characters around whom the action will pivot.
> 
> And NPCs are _opportunities_, not threats. That's why one can encounter a warband leader (let's call him Eomer) who is carrying out his sworn duty to detain you, and have the encounter end up in him releasing you with a loan of horses. That's why alies can become enemies (eg Saruman) and enemies allies (eg Magneto).
> 
> So I think the comparison to traps is not that helpful. In saying this I take myself to be in agreement with some recent posts from FrogReaver, and with some posts further upthread by @hawkeyefan.



The static nature of a trap isn't what I was talking about at all. I was talking about how a trap can be a fun obstacle or challenge when it's perhaps foreshadowed or telegraphed, and/or is in some way a non-trivial challenge and intereatsing challenge that the PCs are given an opportunity to interact with. Or it can be a completely random black box, with no warning, that just impales a PC. Like traps, NPCs are more useful when you have telegraphing, or information of some kind to work with, either before hand or gained during interaction, that you can use to help guide a dynamic social encounter. Or they can be black box that has responses to things, but not for reasons that are made available, forcing PCs to play the 20 questions game to try and figure things out. Some questions are cool, no doubt, but I'd prefer to give _some_ information for PCs to base their approach on. Hopefully that makes the comparison more clear. Non-specific, I'll admit, but hopefully clearer.


----------



## pemerton

Ovinomancer said:


> in my Sigil game, one of my players has a contact as part of his background that provides side-quests.  This NPC is always helpful, never duplicitous, and always is on the side of the PCs.  This is true because it's a background investment by the player, so it doesn't bite in at all, much like taking a feat shouldn't bite you.  This NPC is a vehicle for the player to engage his PC's goals



In my 4e game one of the PCs ended up with a herald/valet-type NPC - recruited from among some rescued NPCs and modelled mechanically (once that book came out) on some ideas in Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium.

That sort of NPC is bascially a device. Similar to a familiar: in the same game the mage's dragonling familiar occasionally did amusing things (in the sense of Cartoon Channel or Super Pets amusing) but it's all basically colour. (The rather plump dragonling did live in the magical hamper of Everlasting Provisions, which applied a penalty to the number of serves available when said basked was opened, but that was with the agreement of the player rather than a GM-imposed penalty.)


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> No, I meant period. I do realize that not everyone agrees with that stance, but lots do. I'm not giving up my 'rights' to that PC just because it isn't currently being played, for whatever reason. In some cases, like I've moved away and will never play with those people again I'd be fine with it, but I'd still want to talk to the DM about it. I can't think of too many reason why I'd deny a DM the request to use my character as an NPC. but that really isn't the point.
> 
> It's not about it being a player character really, it's about it being _my_ character, played or not. Different strokes though, for sure.



Huh.  I mean, I'm a strong proponent of maintaining player authorities, especially in D&D where they are so thin, but that's well past where I'd even be remotely concerned.  I see it, though; it's like ownership of an idea, which we protect with laws in many cases it's such a strong motivation (talking copyright, trademark, and patents here).  You made this piece of fiction, it's yours, and someone else using it is violating that in an almost personal (maybe not almost) way, right?  I can see it.  I suppose, though, that I look at my PCs as part of a shared fiction, so it's a shared ownership already for me.  I think that I'm more performative -- I'm jealous of my prerogative when I'm performing, but when I'm not, I'm okay if someone wants to try on a different interpretation.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> I can smell your mockery.   If it were so innocuous and easy, it would get done every time and we wouldn't have this thread. Sadly though, it doesn't get done all the time, even by professional writers, never mind by homebrewing GMs, who have a lot on their plate. Also, the quality of the handles makes a big difference. So I guess that is innocuously true if you wanted to ignore all the context, example and detail I've provided over the last few pages.



No mockery intended.  I literally meant that that was an inoffensive truth, in that we had just exchanged disagreements but that I didn't find anything objectionable about the statement that failure to properly frame a scene leads to trouble.  Whether it's a social scene or a combat one.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> Yeah I know. I thought I was clear, but I’ll be more specific. The Fighter class does not grant the option for proficiency with any Charisma based skills other than Intimidation.
> 
> Yes, Backgrounds and Multiclassintg might grant additional options, but based on the way character design works, I’d expect far fewer Fighters to have a skill like Persuasion or Deception.
> 
> 
> My point simply being how some classes are far more geared for the social pillar than others in a much more significant way than any disparity in combat efficacy.



Definitely.  The background system, though, is one of my favorite things about 5e.  No more being limited in which skills you can have due to your class.  I used to relax cross-class skills in 3e.  If the player could demonstrate due to background that a skill should be considered a class skill, I'd allow it.  If your fighter came from Halruaa and was the bodyguard for a wizard, I had no problem with that fighter being able to have spellcraft and arcana as class skills.


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> Huh.  I mean, I'm a strong proponent of maintaining player authorities, especially in D&D where they are so thin, but that's well past where I'd even be remotely concerned.  I see it, though; it's like ownership of an idea, which we protect with laws in many cases it's such a strong motivation (talking copyright, trademark, and patents here).  You made this piece of fiction, it's yours, and someone else using it is violating that in an almost personal (maybe not almost) way, right?  I can see it.  I suppose, though, that I look at my PCs as part of a shared fiction, so it's a shared ownership already for me.  I think that I'm more performative -- I'm jealous of my prerogative when I'm performing, but when I'm not, I'm okay if someone wants to try on a different interpretation.



I think we're perhaps far more in agreement that it might seem. I don't really play with people any more where this particular hobnob of mine would make any difference. At a good table, playing with friends, or at least cordial acquaintances, it really wouldn't come up. I'm not suggesting I would regularly try to deny use of a character, not in a game I like. That's more likely to be cool than anything else. As a much younger man, playing as part of an extended group, especially with emotionally fragile younger men, as we all are, there can be some microaggressions and finger-giving involved. Ahh, young gamers. Anyway, moving on...


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> No mockery intended.  I literally meant that that was an inoffensive truth, in that we had just exchanged disagreements but that I didn't find anything objectionable about the statement that failure to properly frame a scene leads to trouble.  Whether it's a social scene or a combat one.



I wasn't being serious. Sorry if it came across that way. We good.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> And there were successful checks, or at least one, and the PCs that walked away walked away. That's how the OP described it. They just happened after the insult, which in the OP's telling didn't sound like any sort of attempt to alter the thinking of anyone. It didn't even sound as though it was an attempt to intimidate, to me.
> 
> Is part of this that you think the insult was an action, which should have succeeded? No, because you describe it as a failure.
> 
> It seemed to me as though that was narrating success by describing the actions of an NPC who hadn't seen the events in the OP's incident. Whom the PCs would not have been attempting to influence--could not have been attempting to influence. In spite of whatever the action declarations had been. If I say, "My character attempts to talk the Mad Tyrant out of executing Mr. Insulty," and you say, "The Captain, coming into the room, turns to the BurgerMaster and says (paraphrasing) 'I will not obey you, sir,' " I will at the least be confused as to why effect aimed at the BurgerMaster seems to have hit the Captain. You have (metaphorically) moved my hand from one target to another *that was not there when I declared my action.* That doesn't seem deft, it seems clumsy as hell.
> 
> It also looked to me as though there was some editing of the BurgerMaster--which is totally fine, even if those traits, et al. were maybe not entirely consistent with what I've gathered of the published adventure. I was, I'm afraid, engaged in a little light mockery when I invented similar tags for the invented NPC (the Captain) that made it easy to shift the events back in the direction of the OP's incident; the point, to the extent I had one, is that it is trivially easy to shift the story by rewriting NPCs, if you want to.



I think you're taking a strange tack, here, in insisting that only the target of an action can react to it and if anyone else does, it's redirecting the player's action.

Here, in @Manbearcat's example of play, the player's action is to insult the Burgomaster.  The stated goal this action is to force the Burgomaster to retreat from his campaign of forced happiness.  The GM allows this to go to a check, which succeeds at the DC the GM sets.  Therefore, the action must move the Burgomaster towards the goal of the player.  However, the Burgomaster has traits that say he will react poorly to insults, so how to honor the success without abandoning the defining traits of the Burgomaster?  This is the question @Manbearcat is trying to illuminate:  that this can be done; you can have a character act according to his traits and yet still honor the success of the player.

In this example, the Burgomaster reacts by calling for his Captain and ordering the PC incarcerated for saying his rule is weak.  This is the NPC acting according to his traits -- we need to find the path to both allow this and honor the success of the PC action.  To do this, the Captain, who, in this example is the Burgomaster's Bond (the Burgomaster respects the Captain), tells the Burgomaster that many in town believe the same, which is a blow to the Burgomaster's ideal that the townsfolk love him AND leverages the bond with the Captain to explain why the Burgomaster would even listen to this.  Why the Captain chooses to divulge this information is not because the player's action was redirected to the Captain, but because this is a truth of the game (and it is, in the game's write-up, that many (most?) townsfolk think the Burgomaster's happiness plan is bunk) and the GM has decided to honor the player's success against the Burgomaster by reinforcing it with the Captain.  This exposes the Bond (if the Burgomaster is listening to the Captain, clearly he has the Burgomaster's ear in a special way), honors the player's success (the Burgomaster is now forced to consider his plan is a failure), AND still honors the Burgomaster's flaw (he reacted to be insulted very poorly).  

@Manbearcat's example has little to do with the OP situation in that it's not meant as an example of how things should have gone.  It's provided as an example of how you could have played it -- how you could have had a PC insult the Burgomaster and still reached a success for the PC.  That's it, and it does a good job of showing that.  It doesn't redirect the PC's action, it honors it to the hilt -- the Burgomaster is insulted and calls for the guard!  But it also honors the successful roll at the core of the example, but finding a way in the fiction to both honor the Burgomaster's written reaction to insults but turning that into a success for the PC by introducing the Captain as an ally to the PC's point.  

Arguing this is bad play is saying that normal conversations, where people try to make a point against a recalcitrant other only to find sudden support from a third party, turning the discussion, is not something that you want your RPGs to be able to emulate.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> I think you're taking a strange tack, here, in insisting that only the target of an action can react to it and if anyone else does, it's redirecting the player's action.




I'm definitely kinda strange, in lots of ways ...



Ovinomancer said:


> In this example, the Burgomaster reacts by calling for his Captain and ordering the PC incarcerated for saying his rule is weak.  This is the NPC acting according to his traits -- we need to find the path to both allow this and honor the success of the PC action.  To do this, the Captain, who, in this example is the Burgomaster's Bond (the Burgomaster respects the Captain), tells the Burgomaster that many in town believe the same, which is a blow to the Burgomaster's ideal that the townsfolk love him AND leverages the bond with the Captain to explain why the Burgomaster would even listen to this.  Why the Captain chooses to divulge this information is not because the player's action was redirected to the Captain, but because this is a truth of the game (and it is, in the game's write-up, that many (most?) townsfolk think the Burgomaster's happiness plan is bunk) and the GM has decided to honor the player's success against the Burgomaster by reinforcing it with the Captain.  This exposes the Bond (if the Burgomaster is listening to the Captain, clearly he has the Burgomaster's ear in a special way), honors the player's success (the Burgomaster is now forced to consider his plan is a failure), AND still honors the Burgomaster's flaw (he reacted to be insulted very poorly).




Except, it wasn't the BurgerMaster's bond to the Captain the PCs were trying to leverage, unless there was some way for them to have noticed it, so you're rewarding them for something they didn't do. As I said, it's my understanding that he's not even in the room when the PCs make the check. I think that if there is a success, it can maybe be narrated to stick to involving only the characters in the room.



Ovinomancer said:


> Arguing this is bad play is saying that normal conversations, where people try to make a point against a recalcitrant other only to find sudden support from a third party, turning the discussion, is not something that you want your RPGs to be able to emulate.




I'm saying it's bad play, because it's not what the characters were trying to do. In the event of a success on a check, if the PCs had any knowledge of the Bond, and worked on the Captain first, and maybe made some effort to have him in the room, that'd be different. In the event of a success on a check, if the PCs don't know about the Captain and he's not in the room, I don't see how he could have any relevance in narrating the success, and using him to do so would be baffling, confusing, and probably feel as though the GM had a certain success path in mind. Is that clearer?


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> Why not?
> 
> Every orc is killable. (By application of the combat rules.)
> 
> Every forest is passable. (By application of the exploration and movement rules.)
> 
> Why is every NPC not influlencable?




Because they aren't equivalent things.  NPCs are killable, just like orcs.  Their houses are passable, just like forests.  However, orc =/= terrain =/= NPCs.  Different things can be treated differently and that's okay.


----------



## Fanaelialae

pemerton said:


> What does _desirable _mean here?
> 
> What is undesirable about the players declaring actions for their PCs to try and change the fiction?
> 
> Whether the fiction _permits_ what you describe is a further question. Eg if the PCs and relevant NPCs aren't in the same room then they will need telepathy or the post if they are going to communicate. But that's about fictional positioning, not about _desirability_.
> 
> Depending on the system, and hence how situations are framed and how the lesser NPCs figure as part of the situation, there may also be finality rules that apply. But D&D isn't a system that uses very form framing of situations, and nor does it have terribly strict rules about finality. So if the PCs can contrive to talk to the servants ,and instigate their revolt, I don't see what the problem is.
> 
> (The closest thing I can think of in my recent play was when the PCs in my Prince Valiant game conquered a castle in Burgundy leading their small warband at the head of a spontaneous peasant uprising. It was quite exciting.)



There's nothing undesirable about the players declaring actions. 

What's potentially undesirable is, as you say, a lack of finality. They offend the baron, so they try to turn the Captain. The Captain won't turn so now they appeal to the guards. The guards won't budge so they try to inspire the servants in the room to revolt. If that's the style of the game, fine, but some people prefer a degree of finality. 

The Captain isn't necessarily going to turn on the baron just because the PCs ask. Maybe he has a good thing going, with the baron turning a blind eye to his misdeeds and offering him wide latitude. He's not going to flip on his boss just because the PCs ask. Maybe if they give him something even better than the deal he currently has, but even then it's a possible better deal (assuming the PCs hold up their end) vs the sure thing he has now. That's a hard sell.

If the Captain is unsatisfied with his job, on the other hand, then it becomes far more likely that the PCs can turn him. Were that the case, I'd likely have some indication thereof.

If you want the PCs to have a chance at succeeding on anything they try, then go ahead. I prefer to have certain things be beyond the scope of likelihood. You're extremely unlikely to convince the ancient red dragon to give you it's hoard. If you have a good reason for it to help you and you are very convincing, it might lend you a few things from its hoard. Because, IMO, it's an ancient chromatic dragon and it doesn't just suddenly turn into Santa just because the players rolled a good persuasion check.

I don't think that players necessarily should get what they want just because they want it. The fiction of the world matters too. That not to suggest that the DM should contrive to stifle them. Just that I think it's okay for certain things to not be possible.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> I'm definitely kinda strange, in lots of ways ...
> 
> 
> 
> Except, it wasn't the BurgerMaster's bond to the Captain the PCs were trying to leverage, unless there was some way for them to have noticed it, so you're rewarding them for something they didn't do. As I said, it's my understanding that he's not even in the room when the PCs make the check. I think that if there is a success, it can maybe be narrated to stick to involving only the characters in the room.



I don't follow this.  Are you claiming that it should be impossible to discover a BIFT unless you specifically declare an action to do so?  That revealing a Bond to honor a success in a social encounter should never occur unless the players specifically act to do so?  That's a pretty interesting position to take, and specifically reinforces the game idea that social encounters are take specific actions to get the NPC to reveal things.  As mentioned earlier, this puts the NPC in the position of the primary mover of the game to which the PC react.  This example doesn't follow that concept, so that might explain why you're disagreeing -- incompatible concepts of play.




> I'm saying it's bad play, because it's not what the characters were trying to do. In the event of a success on a check, if the PCs had any knowledge of the Bond, and worked on the Captain first, and maybe made some effort to have him in the room, that'd be different. In the event of a success on a check, if the PCs don't know about the Captain and he's not in the room, I don't see how he could have any relevance in narrating the success, and using him to do so would be baffling, confusing, and probably feel as though the GM had a certain success path in mind. Is that clearer?



The character was trying to insult the Burgomaster to get the Burgomaster to reconsider his happiness campaign.  The character did insult the Burgomaster.  The Burgomaster is now reconsidering his happiness campaign.  I don't understand why you say the PC didn't do something -- he enabled the Captain to reveal a truth to the Burgomaster that aligns with the PC's intent for their action.  Indeed, without the PC's insult, this revelation is impossible because the Burgomaster doesn't broach it with the Captain.  Your complaint seems to be that unless the PC intended this exact sequence of events, you're somehow usurping control of the PC by narrating what other NPCs do in reaction to the PC?  Again, your restrictions mean that only the target of the PC's action can ever have any reaction to what the PC does.

Let's turn this around.  If the PC fails, and the Burgomaster does the same thing -- calls for the Captain, relates the insult, and orders the PC incarcerated -- according to your restrictions above this would be baffling to the PC because the Captain wasn't present for the insult.  So, when the Captain moves to seize the PC, this would be just as bad -- now the Captain is doing something when we wasn't even there when the PC insulted the Burgomaster!

Clearly, this is ridiculous, but you can't have it both ways.

I mean, this is pretty much the equivalent of being in an argument with a Bob, a friend, and Bob turns to Sam, another friend, and say, "you agree with me, right, Sam?"  But Sam says, actually, no, I agree with @prabe."  You weren't talking to Sam, you were arguing with Bob, how could Sam become involved supporting you if you didn't ask Sam to intervene?  Because, well, that's how a lot of normal conversations happen.  If we rule that our RPGs can't even generate the fiction that matches a common argument occurrence like this, what are we doing?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fanaelialae said:


> There's nothing undesirable about the players declaring actions.
> 
> What's potentially undesirable is, as you say, a lack of finality. They offend the baron, so they try to turn the Captain. The Captain won't turn so now they appeal to the guards. The guards won't budge so they try to inspire the servants in the room to revolt. If that's the style of the game, fine, but some people prefer a degree of finality.
> 
> The Captain isn't necessarily going to turn on the baron just because the PCs ask. Maybe he has a good thing going, with the baron turning a blind eye to his misdeeds and offering him wide latitude. He's not going to flip on his boss just because the PCs ask. Maybe if they give him something even better than the deal he currently has, but even then it's a possible better deal (assuming the PCs hold up their end) vs the sure thing he has now. That's a hard sell.
> 
> If the Captain is unsatisfied with his job, on the other hand, then it becomes far more likely that the PCs can turn him. Were that the case, I'd likely have some indication thereof.
> 
> If you want the PCs to have a chance at succeeding on anything they try, then go ahead. I prefer to have certain things be beyond the scope of likelihood. You're extremely unlikely to convince the ancient red dragon to give you it's hoard. If you have a good reason for it to help you and you are very convincing, it might lend you a few things from its hoard. Because, IMO, it's an ancient chromatic dragon and it doesn't just suddenly turn into Santa just because the players rolled a good persuasion check.
> 
> I don't think that players necessarily should get what they want just because they want it. The fiction of the world matters too. That not to suggest that the DM should contrive to stifle them. Just that I think it's okay for certain things to not be possible.



You again trot out the turtles all the way down despite no one advocating for this at all.  Why?

Of course the Captain isn't going to flip just because the players ask (although, there's no example of play given in this thread except yours where this is an ask, so you've invented the problem you're solving).  The Captain flips because a player succeeded at a check and that fiction makes sense to the GM in the moment.  Why does the Captain flip?  PC success.  I don't need to have determined beforehand all the possibly ways the Captain might be susceptible to flipping.  Why?  Because he just flipped (it's in the fiction), so there must be a reason, which I can plausibly invent if necessary.  It could be anything your conjecture above, or something else entirely.  What it isn't is important when deciding if the Captain flips to begin with.

What you're doing is presenting a case where everything with all possible NPCs must be prepared ahead of time so that the GM can read his notes and decide if a thing is possible according to them.  The Captain's motivations are not written -- I think he's an invented character for the purpose of an illustration of how play can occur -- so we can invent them as necessary to play.  Further, even if the Captain has notes, they're only known to the GM.  Surely we aren't saying that a GM cannot change their mind and alter his notes before they're presented into play?  Once in play, yes, they should remain consistent, but before that, it really doesn't matter what's in my notebook -- if a better option comes along I should take it.  Slavish devotion to notes is weird.

So, you've managed to argue that people should do something no one is suggesting they do, and because you should write down all the possible NPC motivations before play and stick to them.  I don't subscribe, at all.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> I don't follow this.  Are you claiming that it should be impossible to discover a BIFT unless you specifically declare an action to do so?  That revealing a Bond to honor a success in a social encounter should never occur unless the players specifically act to do so?  That's a pretty interesting position to take, and specifically reinforces the game idea that social encounters are take specific actions to get the NPC to reveal things.  As mentioned earlier, this puts the NPC in the position of the primary mover of the game to which the PC react.  This example doesn't follow that concept, so that might explain why you're disagreeing -- incompatible concepts of play.




I'm saying, yet again, that if I declare an action at the BurgerMaster that succeeds, and it effects the Captain, my reaction would be a WTF moment. It feels an awful lot like aiming a crossbow at the BurgerMaster, rolling well enough to hit, and having the GM tell me I've hit the Captain, because he was the one I should have been aiming at in the first place. As described the Captain feels as though he's emerging from out of nowhere with no previous mention or even existence and solving the PCs' problems for them. Even as the result of success, it doesn't seem to follow, even in-fiction, let along as the result of an in-game declaration.



Ovinomancer said:


> The character was trying to insult the Burgomaster to get the Burgomaster to reconsider his happiness campaign.  The character did insult the Burgomaster.  The Burgomaster is now reconsidering his happiness campaign.  I don't understand why you say the PC didn't do something -- he enabled the Captain to reveal a truth to the Burgomaster that aligns with the PC's intent for their action.  Indeed, without the PC's insult, this revelation is impossible because the Burgomaster doesn't broach it with the Captain.  Your complaint seems to be that unless the PC intended this exact sequence of events, you're somehow usurping control of the PC by narrating what other NPCs do in reaction to the PC?  Again, your restrictions mean that only the target of the PC's action can ever have any reaction to what the PC does.




The BurgerMaster isn't reconsidering anything because of anything the characters did. The BurgerMaster is reconsidering his plans because the Captain came in and said some magic words and the BurgerMaster collapsed. Why didn't the PC's words have that effect on the BurgerMaster, if that was the success? I mean, you can butterfly-effect roughly anything, b it seems to me that if there's a success determined then it should actually look like the character's success; this doesn't to me.



Ovinomancer said:


> Let's turn this around.  If the PC fails, and the Burgomaster does the same thing -- calls for the Captain, relates the insult, and orders the PC incarcerated -- according to your restrictions above this would be baffling to the PC because the Captain wasn't present for the insult.  So, when the Captain moves to seize the PC, this would be just as bad -- now the Captain is doing something when we wasn't even there when the PC insulted the Burgomaster!




Oh, please. The BurgerMaster calls for the guards; the Captain comes in with the guards, as the leader thereof, and seizes the PCs per the BurgerMaster's orders. There's a simple narrative logic that seems impossible to unintentionally misunderstand.



Ovinomancer said:


> I mean, this is pretty much the equivalent of being in an argument with a Bob, a friend, and Bob turns to Sam, another friend, and say, "you agree with me, right, Sam?"  But Sam says, actually, no, I agree with @prabe."  You weren't talking to Sam, you were arguing with Bob, how could Sam become involved supporting you if you didn't ask Sam to intervene?  Because, well, that's how a lot of normal conversations happen.  If we rule that our RPGs can't even generate the fiction that matches a common argument occurrence like this, what are we doing?




Except, in a better comparison to the scene in question, Sam wasn't there for the argument. Bob and I walked into and elevator during a pause in the argument and Sam was there. My reaction to Sam would be bafflement and probably a sense that I was being mocked.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> I'm saying, yet again, that if I declare an action at the BurgerMaster that succeeds, and it effects the Captain, my reaction would be a WTF moment. It feels an awful lot like aiming a crossbow at the BurgerMaster, rolling well enough to hit, and having the GM tell me I've hit the Captain, because he was the one I should have been aiming at in the first place. As described the Captain feels as though he's emerging from out of nowhere with no previous mention or even existence and solving the PCs' problems for them. Even as the result of success, it doesn't seem to follow, even in-fiction, let along as the result of an in-game declaration.



It would be more like saying that you loosed a bolt at the Burgomaster, but he used magic to reflect it, but then it bounced off the Captain's shield and hit the Burgomaster anyway.  This weird combination is only because the Burgomaster has a trait that reflects arrows, so you show that, but the Captain's shield has an similar enchantment, so they cancel out and the PC's intended action succeeds!  

I mean, that's pretty much it here.  The Burgomaster has a 'nuh-uh' ability that you bring in the Captain to negate so the PC lands their attempt.



> The BurgerMaster isn't reconsidering anything because of anything the characters did. The BurgerMaster is reconsidering his plans because the Captain came in and said some magic words and the BurgerMaster collapsed. Why didn't the PC's words have that effect on the BurgerMaster, if that was the success? I mean, you can butterfly-effect roughly anything, b it seems to me that if there's a success determined then it should actually look like the character's success; this doesn't to me.



No, the Burgomaster is secretly afraid that the PC is correct, which is why he lashed out.  When his friend supports the PC, it's still the PC's accusation that causes the Burgomaster to reconsider.



> Oh, please. The BurgerMaster calls for the guards; the Captain comes in with the guards, as the leader thereof, and seizes the PCs per the BurgerMaster's orders. There's a simple narrative logic that seems impossible to unintentionally misunderstand.



I agree.  The Captain coming in telling the Burgomaster that the townsfolk agree with the PC is also a simple narrative logic that seems impossible to unintentionally misunderstand, yet here we are.



> Except, in a better comparison to the scene in question, Sam wasn't there for the argument. Bob and I walked into and elevator during a pause in the argument and Sam was there. My reaction to Sam would be bafflement and probably a sense that I was being mocked.



Only if Bob relates the argument you just made to Sam and then Sam reacts, because that's the example.  I think, maybe, you might want to go back and re-read it, because you seem to keep arguing that it makes no sense for the Captain come in when the Burgomaster calls him and then relates the insult to him -- ie, Bob tells Sam what you just said.  This example just continues to show that you're somehow missing the factual chain of events in the example and substituting some other chain that, well, is probably as bad as you think but it's not what was presented.

But, regardless, if you cannot agree that RPGs should be able to recreate common conversational occurrences, then there's not much we can really discuss -- we disagree too fundamentally to proceed.  I would hope that's not the case.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> It would be more like saying that you loosed a bolt at the Burgomaster, but he used magic to reflect it, but then it bounced off the Captain's shield and hit the Burgomaster anyway.  This weird combination is only because the Burgomaster has a trait that reflects arrows, so you show that, but the Captain's shield has an similar enchantment, so they cancel out and the PC's intended action succeeds!




And that would be similarly clumsy in-play, or at least clumsy.



Ovinomancer said:


> I agree.  The Captain coming in telling the Burgomaster that the townsfolk agree with the PC is also a simple narrative logic that seems impossible to unintentionally misunderstand, yet here we are.




Except the Captain didn't hear the insult. He doesn't know what Mr. Insulty said. All he knows is that the BurgerMaster called him in. What the hell is he doing, talking about a conversation he hasn't heard?



Ovinomancer said:


> Only if Bob relates the argument you just made to Sam and then Sam reacts, because that's the example.  I think, maybe, you might want to go back and re-read it, because you seem to keep arguing that it makes no sense for the Captain come in when the Burgomaster calls him and then relates the insult to him -- ie, Bob tells Sam what you just said.  This example just continues to show that you're somehow missing the factual chain of events in the example and substituting some other chain that, well, is probably as bad as you think but it's not what was presented.




So, we're moving the goalposts? Adding things to the story post-facto so we can say it should have worked out the way we think is "better play?" Because my understanding of the inident was that the audience was the BurgerMaster with a couple PCs who wanted to negotiate, Mr. Insulty, and Hostage-taker. After the insult the Burgermaster calls for guards, Hostage-taker tries to take the BurgerMaster hostage, and things go in a generally bad direction. How is it "deft GMing" to have character completely uninvolved in the conversation be the one to resolve it?

Bob and I are walking to the elevator, arguing. The doors open and Sam is standing there. Bob says, "I'm right, Sam, right?" Sam says, "No, prabe is right and everyone in the building knows it and also you're a nutjob."

I mean, that's pretty how you're describing the original incident with the modifications involved. PC's have audience with BurgerMaster; Mr. Insulty insults, as it says on the tin; BurgerMaster calls for the guards; Hostage-taker endeavors to fulfill his telos and fails; Captain comes in and says, "The PCs are right"; BurgerMaster curls up in a ball and cries. Meanwhile, around the table, the players are rolling their eyes as they realize they were supposed to try to suborn the Captain before talking to the BurgerMaster.



Ovinomancer said:


> But, regardless, if you cannot agree that RPGs should be able to recreate common conversational occurrences, then there's not much we can really discuss -- we disagree too fundamentally to proceed.  I would hope that's not the case.




I don't think we disagree about whether TRPGs should be able to recreate common conversations. I think the descriptions of events have mutated so substantially that there's no clear understanding of which facts are being discussed, when. It's probably one of those things where Internet fora do not aid communication.


----------



## Manbearcat

Fanaelialae said:


> I don't really see a player building an always rude character for the reasons you put forth. Care to expound on how it relates?




I don't understand what you're saying here.  Are you saying:

"I don't see a player building toward 'always rude' archetype for the reasons you put forth (are you meaning "for thematic potency and related arc"?)."

Two questions and thoughts here:

1)  Are we now attributing "always rude" to the PC who called out the Burgermeister (this is what I'm going with now since its changed so much...this dude flips the hell out of some all-beef patties and his special sauce is killer) for lacking fitness to rule? 

2)  Why are we doing that?  Again, if this is just a rude player who has created a rude character as a proxy to be  douche...why are we even having this conversation?  Why was it posted as a thread?  Its clearly a social dynamic that is specific to this group of people and they need to resolve it if that is the case.  However, we can have an interesting conversation (and I've been trying to have it) about the player being sincere in their action declaration (meaning "being rude" isn't the 1st order intent within the fiction...its to get the Burgermeister to come to terms with the folly of his fat to protein ratio of his all-beef patty and the insufficient cumin count of his special sauce).

3)  "Always rude" is a weird archetype to build around.  It doesn't describe ethos.  It describes methodology.  You can certainly build around someone who is coarse and blunt for sure.  But those would be approaches to social conflict.  In order for this character to have real thematic heft for the GM to put obstacles in between that character and their aims, we have to know what actually animates them.


----------



## Manbearcat

@prabe

I'm looking at the conversation between you and @Ovinomancer (who has said pretty much exactly what I would have said) and I'm staggered in one sense, yet, in another, I've had similar conversations with other people on this board over the years that have invoked what you're invoking; a form of "Schrodinger's Captain."

I've had enough of those conversations to know that there is something hardware-wise that differentiates us such that we're not able to communicate on this issue because I'm not sure I've ever had a successful conversation with anyone who invokes "Schrodinger's x" (there is a lens through which we view causal relationships and how they relate to gameplay that is fundamentally incongruent).

Let me just say (and reiterate again) the following things:

1)  Forget the initiating play exerpt.  It is ENTIRELY too nebulous and lacking in detail.  I know and you know only the faintest of things about it.  We can't be sure what happened there.

2)  Instead, lets increase the resolution by adding or subtracting details sufficient to create a potential excerpt of play that we can actually discuss.  The only thing that matters are (a) the fictional positioning of the framing, (b) the player's action declaration, (c) the attendant mechanical resolution of that action, and (d) the GM's responsibility in adjudication and evolving the fiction.

On (a):

You keep saying the Captain of the Guard wasn't present for the meeting with the Burgermeister (even though he loves to watch the man cook).  That is a stipulation you are bringing in that doesn't need to be present for our hypothetical.  Obviously, if the Captain isn't present, the GM isn't going to use the captain and his relationship with the Burgermeister as the conduit for honoring the player's success.  That is self-evident!

However, we can trivially account for this and conceive an alternative.  Neither the Captain, nor anyone else, is present.  With that stipulation, on to (b):

(b)  Same action declaration by the PC; some derivative of "you're unfit to rule."

(c)  Player succeeds.

(d)  This time, with the same responsibilities for the GM, the Burgermeister says.  "I see.  I have a mind to call the guard just to see you hauled off in chains.  But ok, I'm unfit to rule.  Let us go address the people.  You and I.  I'll have my men wrangle together the people for a meeting in the square that my balcony portico overlooks (as he points to it).  I'll address them and tell them what you said.  We'll see how the feel about that.  I'll even let you address them!  When they don't respond well, I'll see you in those chains..."

So what now?  How to fulfill your responsibility as GM?  Simple

The PC has earned the right to continue their ability to plea their case, but this time in a completely public forum...to a crowd that  may be intimidated by the proceedings and the Burgermeister looking at them from on high with the legacy of brooking no dissent...or perhaps they'll be emboldened by the PC's bold, inspiring words, the folklore of the PCs' deeds to date, and their sheer numbers (the player's action declaration and the resolution mechanics will tell us how the public responds to the impromptu event).


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Of course the Captain isn't going to flip just because the players ask (although, there's no example of play given in this thread except yours where this is an ask, so you've invented the problem you're solving).  The Captain flips because a player succeeded at a check and that fiction makes sense to the GM in the moment.  Why does the Captain flip?  PC success.  I don't need to have determined beforehand all the possibly ways the Captain might be susceptible to flipping.  Why?  Because he just flipped (it's in the fiction), so there must be a reason, which I can plausibly invent if necessary.  It could be anything your conjecture above, or something else entirely.  What it isn't is important when deciding if the Captain flips to begin with.




A lot of us don't want a game where all we have to do is walk into a magic shop and make a roll to walk out with everything for free.  Then walk to the bank and just make a roll to get all the money in it given to us with just a successful persuasion check.  What's the point of even playing if a few rolls can get you almost everything?



> What you're doing is presenting a case where everything with all possible NPCs must be prepared ahead of time so that the GM can read his notes and decide if a thing is possible according to them.




I love how you accuse @Fanaelialae of "You again trot out the turtles all the way down despite no one advocating for this at all." and then trot out a turtle that no one is advocating for.  Nobody is sayin gthat everything with all possible NPCs must be prepared ahead of time.  Some simple motivations are sufficient to give the DM an idea of what is a for sure yes, is uncertain or a for sure no.


----------



## FrogReaver

Maxperson said:


> A lot of us don't want a game where all we have to do is walk into a magic shop and make a roll to walk out with everything for free.  Then walk to the bank and just make a roll to get all the money in it given to us with just a successful persuasion check.  What's the point of even playing if a few rolls can get you almost everything?




But no one is suggesting that should ever be the case and if they were we could dismiss their views entirely.  So maybe you could actually try to explain the logic you are using to get from what we are saying to that?  Make a good solid case because it's obviously going to be something hotly contested given the stakes.


----------



## FrogReaver

Manbearcat said:


> @prabe
> 
> I'm looking at the conversation between you and @Ovinomancer (who has said pretty much exactly what I would have said) and I'm staggered in one sense, yet, in another, I've had similar conversations with other people on this board over the years that have invoked what you're invoking; a form of "Schrodinger's Captain."
> 
> I've had enough of those conversations to know that there is something hardware-wise that differentiates us such that we're not able to communicate on this issue because I'm not sure I've ever had a successful conversation with anyone who invokes "Schrodinger's x" (there is a lens through which we view causal relationships and how they relate to gameplay that is fundamentally incongruent).




I wanted to touch on this notion because it is something I've argued with you and @pemerton about in the past.

You treat mechanical success solely as fictional success - which means you are presumptively okay with virtually any success state even if it's one in which there isn't a direct in-fiction casual relationship between the action taken and the in-fiction success state.  

I'm one of the people who find that causal relationship between action and in-fiction success state to be important.  That said I've evolved a bit in my opinion.  I think quite often some of the "best" success states are the ones that preserve that causal relationship.  It's just I recognize that there can exist situations where preserving that causal relationship may actually make for a worse game.  So while I would tend to use such non causal success states rarely, they are no longer anathema to my DM toolbox or general verisimilitude because I recognize the value they can add.


----------



## Campbell

I am absolutely fine with what is in the GM Notes' having some weight. However 'cannot be influenced' or 'cannot be intimidated' are terrible notes to have. There are some things that given NPC will probably not be able to be convinced to do. There are certainly some things they can be convinced to do for the right price.

At the end of the day we should make sure NPCs feel human. We should focus on what they want and what is important to them. Obviously if he is granting them an audience he probably wants something from the PCs. We do not need to know all his desires, but the ones pertinent to the scene would sure help.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> Of course the Captain isn't going to flip just because the players ask




Why not?  Could they not ask him to and get a roll and if successful he flips?  You see, I agree that he won't flip just because he's asked.  It's just I'm not sure how to square that with your methodology.


----------



## FrogReaver

Getting back on topic about the insult - I've seen multiple plausible motivations for how one could be using an insult to leverage an NPC but I've not seen any mention of what was the most likely motivation.

I think the most likely motivation for the player having the PC insult the burgomaster was simply to change the current game state to something more interesting.  If such was the motivation was the insult justifiable?  Should it at that point have resulted into auto-failure resulting in having the parties lives threatened by an ambiguous call for "guards" with no statement of NPC intent?


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> And that would be similarly clumsy in-play, or at least clumsy.
> 
> 
> 
> Except the Captain didn't hear the insult. He doesn't know what Mr. Insulty said. All he knows is that the BurgerMaster called him in. What the hell is he doing, talking about a conversation he hasn't heard?
> 
> 
> 
> So, we're moving the goalposts? Adding things to the story post-facto so we can say it should have worked out the way we think is "better play?" Because my understanding of the inident was that the audience was the BurgerMaster with a couple PCs who wanted to negotiate, Mr. Insulty, and Hostage-taker. After the insult the Burgermaster calls for guards, Hostage-taker tries to take the BurgerMaster hostage, and things go in a generally bad direction. How is it "deft GMing" to have character completely uninvolved in the conversation be the one to resolve it?
> 
> Bob and I are walking to the elevator, arguing. The doors open and Sam is standing there. Bob says, "I'm right, Sam, right?" Sam says, "No, prabe is right and everyone in the building knows it and also you're a nutjob."
> 
> I mean, that's pretty how you're describing the original incident with the modifications involved. PC's have audience with BurgerMaster; Mr. Insulty insults, as it says on the tin; BurgerMaster calls for the guards; Hostage-taker endeavors to fulfill his telos and fails; Captain comes in and says, "The PCs are right"; BurgerMaster curls up in a ball and cries. Meanwhile, around the table, the players are rolling their eyes as they realize they were supposed to try to suborn the Captain before talking to the BurgerMaster.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we disagree about whether TRPGs should be able to recreate common conversations. I think the descriptions of events have mutated so substantially that there's no clear understanding of which facts are being discussed, when. It's probably one of those things where Internet fora do not aid communication.



I've been discussing @Manbearcat's example of play.  You, however, seem to be discussing some odd mishmash of that and the OP that doesn't resemble either.  This appears to be a large part of our disagreement -- I'm consistently discussing the play example from MBC but you've shifted to something else.  This can be a feature of internet discussions, as you note, but a strength of such is that you can go back and reread and see that I have not moved my goalposts.


----------



## FrogReaver

Manbearcat said:


> I don't understand what you're saying here.  Are you saying:
> 
> "I don't see a player building toward 'always rude' archetype for the reasons you put forth (are you meaning "for thematic potency and related arc"?)."
> 
> Two questions and thoughts here:
> 
> 1)  Are we now attributing "always rude" to the PC who called out the Burgermeister (this is what I'm going with now since its changed so much...this dude flips the hell out of some all-beef patties and his special sauce is killer) for lacking fitness to rule?
> 
> 2)  Why are we doing that?  Again, if this is just a rude player who has created a rude character as a proxy to be  douche...why are we even having this conversation?  Why was it posted as a thread?  Its clearly a social dynamic that is specific to this group of people and they need to resolve it if that is the case.  However, we can have an interesting conversation (and I've been trying to have it) about the player being sincere in their action declaration (meaning "being rude" isn't the 1st order intent within the fiction...its to get the Burgermeister to come to terms with the folly of his fat to protein ratio of his all-beef patty and the insufficient cumin count of his special sauce).
> 
> 3)  "Always rude" is a weird archetype to build around.  It doesn't describe ethos.  It describes methodology.  You can certainly build around someone who is coarse and blunt for sure.  But those would be approaches to social conflict.  In order for this character to have real thematic heft for the GM to put obstacles in between that character and their aims, we have to know what actually animates them.




I was the one that brought the always insulting PC up.  I contrasted this with an impossible to insult NPC.  The point I was making was simply that if a player is playing such a character then it's actually the DM that is the douche for pitting him up against an impossible to insult NPC.

That example for that purpose has grew some legs it seems.

I think more on point though is that a DM can always put an impossible NPC in place for any PC that is being played toward anything other than survival and accumulation of wealth.  If the DM wants he can place an NPC in front of any such PC that will be impossible for them to handle.  Or stepping back a bit from the absoluteness of impossibility we could talk about a high degree of unlikeness to be able to handle that NPC - which doesn't actually change where this is going - that changing up an NPC to not be impossible or nearly impossible or very very difficult for your PCs to succeed in social interaction with is easy, whereas demanding the PCs accommodate any such NPC you come up with or "lose" ultimately forcers the players to play characters that could plausibly be played such that they could potentially accommodate any PC.

Thus, this notion of needing PCs primarily concerned with survival and accumulation of wealth to actually be flexible enough to deal with whatever the DM decides to throw at you is actually a weak point in most D&D games and really pushes the game into the murder hobo direction IMO.


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> 1)  Are we now attributing "always rude" to the PC who called out the Burgermeister (this is what I'm going with now since its changed so much...this dude flips the hell out of some all-beef patties and his special sauce is killer) for lacking fitness to rule?




I think perhaps I'm going to switch to Burger King. Flame broil those PCs!


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> I wanted to touch on this notion because it is something I've argued with you and @pemerton about in the past.
> 
> You treat mechanical success solely as fictional success - which means you are presumptively okay with virtually any success state even if it's one in which there isn't a direct in-fiction casual relationship between the action taken and the in-fiction success state.
> 
> I'm one of the people who find that causal relationship between action and in-fiction success state to be important.  That said I've evolved a bit in my opinion.  I think quite often some of the "best" success states are the ones that preserve that causal relationship.  It's just I recognize that there can exist situations where preserving that causal relationship may actually make for a worse game.  So while I would tend to use such non causal success states rarely, they are no longer anathema to my DM toolbox or general verisimilitude because I recognize the value they can add.



This isn't quite true.  The fictional success does have a causal relationship, it's more that the causal relationship may have been heretofore unknown.  It still needs to follow the established fiction and be genre appropriate.  The example with the Captain, for instance, still directly hinges on the insult, so it's rooted in play, even if it introduces a previously unknown causal relationship that the Captain chooses now to talk to the Burgomaster about the town's agreement with the insult.

Narrating that a tiny meteor fragment suddenly impacts the Burgomaster right after the PC's insult that causes miniscule brain damage that leaves the Burgomaster amenable to the PC's message would not be acceptable because it isn't grounded in the fictional state as established and isn't genre appropriate.

It is more fluid, but it's not wide open.  And, I say this as someone that went through a similar evolution to what you describe, almost exactly.  I, maybe, have had a bit more time to chew on the concepts, which might explain any difference?  Have you tried PbtA games? They really thrive on this adjudication style.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> Why not?  Could they not ask him to and get a roll and if successful he flips?  You see, I agree that he won't flip just because he's asked.  It's just I'm not sure how to square that with your methodology.



Maybe?  It very much depends on the current framing of the scene and what's been established.  I mean, if it's been established that the Captain is "loyal to a fault", then a simple ask is always a failure.  Maybe, though, if you also discovered a secret shame, you might leverage that into a successful ask.  It really deoends on the exact situation.

However, that said, if nothing has been established then I'm open to the possibility.  Not any ask is feasible, though, it still must be grounded in established fiction and genre expectations.  Asking for his house isn't going to work -- it violates the genre expectations that people are basically like normal people unless otherwise noted -- and normal people can't be convinced to give away their home outside of extraordinary circumstances.  But, in the example given by @Manbearcat, there's nothing to indicate that the Captain wouldn't take an opportunity to tell his boss an unwelcome truth in a situation where he might listen to it, say in a room of powerful outsiders saying the sane thing?

But, to return to your question, I cannot provide tighter guidelines because they're very much grounded in what's happening in play.  Without play, it's kinda vague, high-level  sounding, which may be part of the disconnect.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> A lot of us don't want a game where all we have to do is walk into a magic shop and make a roll to walk out with everything for free.  Then walk to the bank and just make a roll to get all the money in it given to us with just a successful persuasion check.  What's the point of even playing if a few rolls can get you almost everything?



Me, either! Yuck, that sounds terrible!




> I love how you accuse @Fanaelialae of "You again trot out the turtles all the way down despite no one advocating for this at all." and then trot out a turtle that no one is advocating for.  Nobody is sayin gthat everything with all possible NPCs must be prepared ahead of time.  Some simple motivations are sufficient to give the DM an idea of what is a for sure yes, is uncertain or a for sure no.



And I love that your argument against ne saying "always prepped NPCs" is to say that NPCs should have some prepared, if simple, motivations that at least broadly define the possible yeses and noes for a given NPC.

No one claimed such notes are bad.  I argue against the idea their often or even commonly needed to have "realistic" social encounters.


----------



## Imaculata

pemerton said:


> Why not?
> 
> Every orc is killable. (By application of the combat rules.)
> 
> Every forest is passable. (By application of the exploration and movement rules.)
> 
> Why is every NPC not influencable?




I think a better comparison here would be to say that not every npc can be swayed to take any position or reveal any kind of information. There are limits, just as combat has limits regarding what you can do. Some monsters are immune to fire, just as some npc's are reluctant to give up certain bits of information, or to betray certain allies. In the case of the Burgomaster, he had one line that they could not cross, and they crossed it.

But this particular encounter is from Curse of Strahd, correct? I haven't played Curse of Strahd, but as I understand it it is a setting with a very different tone compared to normal D&D. The setting is more dark and dangerous, or so I've heard.

I wonder if the players were properly made aware what sort of adventure they were playing. Whenever I run a campaign with a specific setting, I make sure to inform my players during our session 0 what to expect. For example, if they'll be playing Call of Cthulhu, I tell them that fights with monsters often result in death, and that fleeing is often the better option. I also tell them that CoC campaigns often have a bad ending, resulting in death or madness of the characters. It is important that your players know what they're up for, so they can make smarter choices.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Ovinomancer said:


> You again trot out the turtles all the way down despite no one advocating for this at all.  Why?
> 
> Of course the Captain isn't going to flip just because the players ask (although, there's no example of play given in this thread except yours where this is an ask, so you've invented the problem you're solving).  The Captain flips because a player succeeded at a check and that fiction makes sense to the GM in the moment.  Why does the Captain flip?  PC success.  I don't need to have determined beforehand all the possibly ways the Captain might be susceptible to flipping.  Why?  Because he just flipped (it's in the fiction), so there must be a reason, which I can plausibly invent if necessary.  It could be anything your conjecture above, or something else entirely.  What it isn't is important when deciding if the Captain flips to begin with.
> 
> What you're doing is presenting a case where everything with all possible NPCs must be prepared ahead of time so that the GM can read his notes and decide if a thing is possible according to them.  The Captain's motivations are not written -- I think he's an invented character for the purpose of an illustration of how play can occur -- so we can invent them as necessary to play.  Further, even if the Captain has notes, they're only known to the GM.  Surely we aren't saying that a GM cannot change their mind and alter his notes before they're presented into play?  Once in play, yes, they should remain consistent, but before that, it really doesn't matter what's in my notebook -- if a better option comes along I should take it.  Slavish devotion to notes is weird.
> 
> So, you've managed to argue that people should do something no one is suggesting they do, and because you should write down all the possible NPC motivations before play and stick to them.  I don't subscribe, at all.



I was responding to someone who was asking me about it. That's why.

I don't agree that just because the players rolled a good check, that the world suddenly changes to make the loyal Captain flip on his boss. Now, if the Captain is disloyal or I haven't determined his loyalty, that's one thing. But my game world doesn't necessarily change just because the players rolled well. 

It doesn't matter whether the players are aware of the information or not, if it is something I've established then it's unlikely to change just because they rolled well. If I haven't established it, then it's absolutely open to a good roll like you've described. 

What does this buy me? Verisimilitude - an increased sense that the world exists outside of and isn't simply being generated for the PCs. Sometimes they try an approach that won't work and bounce hard off it. I don't generally call for rolls that are impossible, so the players are aware when they fail at something that couldn't be accomplished. 

I have not suggested that everything with all possible NPCs must be prepared. What I have said is that for prepared NPCs this is how I handle it. I don't change the fiction just because the players roll well. In the case where the NPC is improvised, I do handle it much as you suggest, where the uncertain fiction is open to being determined by a roll. Even then, certain thing may be impossible, like convincing the ancient red dragon to give you its hoard. It doesn't matter how well you roll, the fiction is not going to reconfigure itself to that extent.


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> Are you talking about a situation where you have multiple active PCs in a game?  If so, I agree -- the PCs are active and I should retain control over them.  If you're talking about an inactive PC -- retired or just swapped out for a different PC in a one-PC-at-a-time game, then... no?  Inactive PCs are ones the player has decided to not play anymore, and, to me, if you're not playing the character, it's no longer a Player Character.



Yes it is.  It's just not being played at the moment, and even if the player never plays it again the character still belongs to that player in perpetuity.

Unless, of course, the owning player proactively hands control of it over to another player or to the DM.  But the owning player has to initiate this, it can't just be the DM saying "That one's mine now, thank you very much."

I've also seen the reverse happen (and been on both ends of it, at different times), where the DM hands ownership of an NPC over to a player.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Manbearcat said:


> I don't understand what you're saying here.  Are you saying:
> 
> "I don't see a player building toward 'always rude' archetype for the reasons you put forth (are you meaning "for thematic potency and related arc"?)."
> 
> Two questions and thoughts here:
> 
> 1)  Are we now attributing "always rude" to the PC who called out the Burgermeister (this is what I'm going with now since its changed so much...this dude flips the hell out of some all-beef patties and his special sauce is killer) for lacking fitness to rule?
> 
> 2)  Why are we doing that?  Again, if this is just a rude player who has created a rude character as a proxy to be  douche...why are we even having this conversation?  Why was it posted as a thread?  Its clearly a social dynamic that is specific to this group of people and they need to resolve it if that is the case.  However, we can have an interesting conversation (and I've been trying to have it) about the player being sincere in their action declaration (meaning "being rude" isn't the 1st order intent within the fiction...its to get the Burgermeister to come to terms with the folly of his fat to protein ratio of his all-beef patty and the insufficient cumin count of his special sauce).
> 
> 3)  "Always rude" is a weird archetype to build around.  It doesn't describe ethos.  It describes methodology.  You can certainly build around someone who is coarse and blunt for sure.  But those would be approaches to social conflict.  In order for this character to have real thematic heft for the GM to put obstacles in between that character and their aims, we have to know what actually animates them.



You understood correctly. @FrogReaver has explained why they came up with the example of the always rude character, so I won't delve into it.

To reiterate, the example was of an always rude PC, and how placing an easily insulted NPC in the world is unfair towards that player. I disagree with that position, as I don't think there's anything wrong with throwing in the occasional challenge that targets a character's weak point. As I see it, that's simply an opportunity to grow the character and get creative. 

That's not to suggest that all NPCs should be thin skinned. You should absolutely let the character have their fun with their rude PC. But not every NPC should conform to that. I think it's perfectly fine to have NPCs who present a special challenge to one or more PCs.


----------



## Lanefan

Campbell said:


> I am absolutely fine with what is in the GM Notes' having some weight. However 'cannot be influenced' or 'cannot be intimidated' are terrible notes to have. There are some things that given NPC will probably not be able to be convinced to do. There are certainly some things they can be convinced to do for the right price.



Agreed, flat absolutes like "Cannot be influenced" aren't good; but notes saying something like "Can be infuenced but only to [point X] beyond which he will not go" or "The first attempt to intimidate will inform all further attempts, as the BurgerMaster will react by either stiffening (all further attempts fail) or cracking (all further attempts succeed)", stuff like that.  And I know my examples aren't great. 



> At the end of the day we should make sure NPCs feel human. We should focus on what they want and what is important to them. Obviously if he is granting them an audience he probably wants something from the PCs. We do not need to know all his desires, but the ones pertinent to the scene would sure help.



Again agreed.  

However, complicating things in this case is that the tyrant isn't entirely sane, thus his reactions might not predictably match those of a more normal human and making him 'feel human' might be more of a challenge for the DM. Given that, pretty much anything's in play when it comes to his reactions to anything, depending how whacked-out the DM wants him to come across as. (were I DMing I'd make him completely balls-nuts crazy just so I could ham it up for humour - probably a welcome break in any Ravenloft adventure)


----------



## Fenris-77

Lanefan said:


> "The first attempt to intimidate will inform all further attempts, as the BurgerMaster will react by either stiffening..."



 We've gone to a whole different kind of game I think...


----------



## Imaculata

Fanaelialae said:


> To reiterate, the example was of an always rude PC, and how placing an easily insulted NPC in the world is unfair towards that player. I disagree with that position, as I don't think there's anything wrong with throwing in the occasional challenge that targets a character's weak point. As I see it, that's simply an opportunity to grow the character and get creative.




I disagree with that position as well. I have fond memories of my barbarian having to socialize at a dinner party of a noble woman, and trying to understand the concept of etiquette. That DM knew exactly what he was doing, and the result was hilarious. Imagine a barbarian trying to figure out how to eat with a knife and fork, and which spoon to pick for each course, while trying to stay polite. The rest of the party was holding their breath as a disaster could unfold any moment. I played up the barbarian's mistakes on purpose for comedy gold. My barbarian would occasionally use a complicated word to look sophisticated, only to make it painfully obvious that he didn't know what the word meant.

Of course this situation and the one we are discussing have quite different consequences. The worst that could happen at the dinner party, was the entire party being embarassed and having to apologize for their friends bad manners.


----------



## Scott Christian

pemerton said:


> Iin real life, if I'm attacked by orcs they win. And I've never inherited a magic heirloom either.
> 
> Why is my model for FRPG dialogue me? That's not my model for anything else in a RPG.
> 
> Why isn't it King Richard meeting and swapping gifts with Saladin's brother (to point to some real-world example of charismatic individuals). Or why isn't it Robert Downey Jr or Julian Moore or even Jack Black in a film? Just like my models for combat are Jet Li, the knights in Excalibur, and Wolverine.
> 
> In the example from Curse of Strahd, this is not a meeting between a boss and a downtrodden underling, or between a police officer and a hapless driver. The PCs are personalities in their own right, protagonists in a fantasy adventure, with prowess in arms or magic or both. The Mad Tyrant is among peers.




You are correct. It shouldn't be you. I provided examples outside of you. But you are correct, it shouldn't be you or me or any other common person. 



pemerton said:


> Why can the barbarian not speak and contribute to the endeavour, if that's what that player wants to do?
> 
> Conversely, if the player of the diplomat doesn't want the barbarian to kill a particular NPC, isn't it his/her prerogative to have his/her PC do something about that?




I specifically said, actually it's my first sentence: "The barbarian _can_ speak." I just stated that there are times, especially when it's an important interaction, he should let the diplomat shine. That is what the player created (and spent character creation resources) his character for. And again, the diplomat _can_ try to thwart the barbarian from killing. But, if they are fighting a pivotal bad guy - he probably shouldn't. 

Please understand, I never said they couldn't. But, there should be a context. As I stated in a prior post, it can't be because "I'm bored and want to fight something." There is a give an take to an RPG table. 



pemerton said:


> Why is ths social encounter scripted? Is that how combats are meant to be run too?




Some social encounters are scripted. If you don't run any that way, good for you. But many are - specifically pivotal NPC's. A scene where players meet the Captain of the guards, and notice she has a commanding presence and all her actions indicate a no-nonsense NPC that doesn't take well to intimidation. She is surrounded by guards asking the PC's to check on some missing guards. It is made clear she is reaching into her own coin purse to pay the players. If the players decide they want their barbarian to use intimidation, the roll needed would be much higher (or near impossible) than if they showed her respect. This NPC is pivotal. She will be in and out of the adventurer's lives for three or four sessions. Her demeanor is made clear. If the players don't pick up on it, or if the barbarian is "bored" and wants to thwart the diplomat's chance to shine, so be it. But, in the end it's not being considerate.

As I stated earlier. This is not a random NPC. It's not the tailor or blacksmith or barkeep the barbarian is using intimidation on to stay open an extra hour. It is a pivotal NPC. And pivotal NPC's are where the main storyline take place. Maybe we should name them NPC and npc to denote the type.


----------



## Scott Christian

hawkeyefan said:


> For the player, it's doing nothing. Whereas in the situation where the mage is watching the melee people fighting a golem, the mage can cast buffs, or spells that can indirectly affect the golem, and so on. When the rogue steps up to a trap, it's resolved quickly enough that no one else is sitting for long stretches with nothing to do.
> 
> A social interaction can potentially be long. For those who are engaged with it, that's not a problem....it's fun and engaging. For someone not engaged....it can be boring.
> 
> What always amazes me too, is how easily everyone but the face is uninvolved in the situation. Why would the NPC not question them all? Why would he not say something like "You, warrior....you've been silent through all this...what do you think?" Put that character on the spot. The fact that characters choose to have low CHA scores and other choices should in fact be a party weakness. Why shouldn't it come up?




Great point. The NPC should try to draw the character in to the conversation sometimes. Although, it's not always reasonable, both because of the world's context or time. And speaking of time, what is "a long stretch?" Combat at level 6 can take an hour with each encounter. At level 12 it's almost stupid how long it can take if the sides are equal. Watching characters mill about town and buy equipment can take an hour, especially with large groups. So when does a social encounter become too long? (Serious question. I assume it is individual, but for you as GM & player.) 

As for speaking. I think a response to this is it depends what table you play at. Many players don't want to be the one talking, but they like to listen. I play with several people like that. It's like watching your friend try to talk to a girl and ask her out on a date. It can be entertaining. It is not always boring. If a player is always bored with it they can:

comment themselves (and probably should try to help the face of their group unless they have ulterior motives, which is rare
ask questions or whisper advice to the party's face
comment out of character with jokes or observations
go to the bathroom, get a drink, etc.
try to ruin the obvious objective of your party's face

Again these are pivotal social scenes, not commonplace ones.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> And I love that your argument against ne saying "always prepped NPCs" is to say that NPCs should have some prepared, if simple, motivations that at least broadly define the possible yeses and noes for a given NPC.




So first, Strawmanning my response doesn't absolve you of trotting out a turtle that none one is talking about while at the same time coming down on someone for trotting out turtles that no one is talking about.  

Second, I didn't say "should."  I said that simple motivations are sufficient to know some things and be unsure about others, which allows the DM to say yes or no about some things and roll for others.


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> Yes it is.  It's just not being played at the moment, and even if the player never plays it again the character still belongs to that player in perpetuity.
> 
> Unless, of course, the owning player proactively hands control of it over to another player or to the DM.  But the owning player has to initiate this, it can't just be the DM saying "That one's mine now, thank you very much."
> 
> I've also seen the reverse happen (and been on both ends of it, at different times), where the DM hands ownership of an NPC over to a player.



Yep.  The DM only controls the DM side of things.  The players control the player side of things, which includes the characters that they play.  Over the years I've had a couple DMs come to me, expecting me to turn over character sheets for PCs that I've played in their games.  I've always told those DMs no.  A few times a DM has come and politely asked me if he could use one of my inactive PCs as an NPC in a game with some of his other players.  I usually say yes.  If they ask nicely, they are acknowledging my ownership of the PC.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Scott Christian said:


> Great point. The NPC should try to draw the character in to the conversation sometimes. Although, it's not always reasonable, both because of the world's context or time. And speaking of time, what is "a long stretch?" Combat at level 6 can take an hour with each encounter. At level 12 it's almost stupid how long it can take if the sides are equal. Watching characters mill about town and buy equipment can take an hour, especially with large groups. So when does a social encounter become too long? (Serious question. I assume it is individual, but for you as GM & player.)




To me, any scene that involves all characters in some way can be as long as it needs to be. For anything where a limited number of players are engaged, consideration must be given for those waiting to participate. Now, I would expect a reasonable level of patience on the part of anyone not presently involved, but I do think it's better to get back to them sooner rather than later. Even if it's just a simple check in like "Okay, Mike...while all this is going on, what is Mongo doing?" Such a prompt gives the player the chance to engage if they'd like, or to refrain if they're okay continuing to wait. 

Long combats tend to be different from long social scenes....or at least the potential for significant difference is there. With combat, everyone is likely involved. There is of course the chance that they get removed from the action, but those are typically understood and accepted as part of the game. When someone drops to 0 HP, they're not out of the action simply because it's someone else's time to shine. 



Scott Christian said:


> As for speaking. I think a response to this is it depends what table you play at. Many players don't want to be the one talking, but they like to listen. I play with several people like that. It's like watching your friend try to talk to a girl and ask her out on a date. It can be entertaining. It is not always boring. If a player is always bored with it they can:
> 
> comment themselves (and probably should try to help the face of their group unless they have ulterior motives, which is rare
> ask questions or whisper advice to the party's face
> comment out of character with jokes or observations
> go to the bathroom, get a drink, etc.
> try to ruin the obvious objective of your party's face
> 
> Again these are pivotal social scenes, not commonplace ones.




In any scene where one player has the focus....their PC is the one doing the talking or decision making for whatever reason....I always allow the other players to offer input and suggestions. If they're engaged enough to be following things and have ideas, I don't see the point in shutting that down. So that's my first step to trying to alleviate any potential boredom. 

Additionally, if their characters are actually present in the scene, I do what I can to draw them into the scene. Whether it's a side conversation with another NPC, or the main NPC asks them direct questions. If their character isn't present in the scene, I may have something come up wherever they may be. Then I'll try and rotate focus a bit, alternating between scenes as needed. 

I have one player who doesn't really like to talk scenes out. He's pretty much of the opinion that all such social scenes can be boiled down to a few points and a few rolls, and then you move on. I have other players who will happily speak in character for an entire session. So when I GM for these players, I have to balance that. I don't want to skip past parts that are fun for some players, but I don't want to let them indulge to the point that the other player is constantly listen to them talk. 

As such, we don't tend to roleplay out mundane scenes like buying gear and the like.....we just narrate that quickly, deduct the necessary GP, and add the items to the sheet. The in character discussions that are roleplayed are limited to meaningful scenes, as you mention.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Wow. There's a lot going on in this thread. Not sure if everyone's talking about the same thing, but NPCs aren't immovable. They're not like NPCs in video games, where the longsword always costs x gold pieces, and nothing else. Sure, it's very unreasonable to give away all your weapons and armor for free, but a small discount when a character roleplays well is not the end of the world. 

NPCs don't have to be unyielding, but they also don't have to be unnecessarily stupid when it comes to finances or another topic important to their personality.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> So first, Strawmanning my response doesn't absolve you of trotting out a turtle that none one is talking about while at the same time coming down on someone for trotting out turtles that no one is talking about.



Claims of strawmanning are deflated by selective quoting, and also by doing it yourself.


> Second, I didn't say "should."  I said that simple motivations are sufficient to know some things and be unsure about others, which allows the DM to say yes or no about some things and roll for others.



Which is still saying that some notes are needed/desirable/wanted for all NPCs so as to provide this.  As I said in the part of my previous post you snipped, notes aren't bad.  They also aten't necessary or maybe even desireable (to everyone).


----------



## Fanaelialae

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Wow. There's a lot going on in this thread. Not sure if everyone's talking about the same thing, but NPCs aren't immovable. They're not like NPCs in video games, where the longsword always costs x gold pieces, and nothing else. Sure, it's very unreasonable to give away all your weapons and armor for free, but a small discount when a character roleplays well is not the end of the world.
> 
> NPCs don't have to be unyielding, but they also don't have to be unnecessarily stupid when it comes to finances or another topic important to their personality.



No one's claimed that a small discount would be out of line. Although if the NPC in question is Scrooge prior to Christmas Eve, maybe it is. 

There are things the NPC may be flexible regarding (a small discount on a large purchase), things that they will only yield under special circumstances (the loyal guard Captain succumbing to blackmail), or never under any circumstances (the devout pacifist allowing himself to be provoked to violence). It's all part and parcel of the NPC's personality and characterization.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Which is still saying that some notes are needed/desirable/wanted for all NPCs so as to provide this.




Blatantly false.  They're only needed if you CHOOSE to play that way.  They aren't if you don't.  Don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> Blatantly false.  They're only needed if you CHOOSE to play that way.  They aren't if you don't.  Don't put words in my mouth.



Okay, then, can you articulate what your disagreement with me is?  There's a lot of attack, but not a lot of substance if you don't disagree with my points.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Okay, then, can you articulate what your disagreement with me is?  There's a lot of attack, but not a lot of substance if you don't disagree with my points.



Sure.  First I called you out for doing the exact same thing you were calling someone else out for, in the same post you called them out no less.

Second, I was refuting the idea you set forth that you somehow need to spell out every detail and possible response for NPCs to play the way we play.  You don't.  All you have to do is have a few general ideas of how the NPCs behaves.  I wasn't saying this was a necessity of play.  Just that with a few such ideas, you can have sufficient information to say yes, no or roll to a great many things the players come up with for their PCs.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> Sure.  First I called you out for doing the exact same thing you were calling someone else out for, in the same post you called them out no less.



Oh.  How noble of you?


> Second, I was refuting the idea you set forth that you somehow need to spell out every detail and possible response for NPCs to play the way we play.  You don't.  All you have to do is have a few general ideas of how the NPCs behaves.  I wasn't saying this was a necessity of play.  Just that with a few such ideas, you can have sufficient information to say yes, no or roll to a great many things the players come up with for their PCs.



Well, that was my disagreement with the other poster, not you.  Rather, it appears you've been attacking because you disagree with my disagreement with another poster, with added accusations of fallacies.  Um, okay, clearly this discussion doesn't need to continue.  You may consider me properly chastised by your intervention, if it aids you.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fanaelialae said:


> I was responding to someone who was asking me about it. That's why.



I guess I can see how you see that, but that's not what I pulled from @pemerton's questions.  C'est la vie.


> I don't agree that just because the players rolled a good check, that the world suddenly changes to make the loyal Captain flip on his boss. Now, if the Captain is disloyal or I haven't determined his loyalty, that's one thing. But my game world doesn't necessarily change just because the players rolled well.



Well, no, if the Captain is established in the fiction (more on this soon), then this would violate narration of results must be grounded in the fiction (and genre appropriate, but betrayal is, so that's not the conflict).  The issue I have here is how your characterize your game world changing -- and I think the conflict is what we consider to be established in the fiction.



> It doesn't matter whether the players are aware of the information or not, if it is something I've established then it's unlikely to change just because they rolled well. If I haven't established it, then it's absolutely open to a good roll like you've described.



And, here's that conflict.  You treat things that you've decided, but that players do not yet know, as established in the fiction.  I don't.  Unless it's in the world openly, it's up for grabs.  Now, I may very well (and do) make all kinds of notes for myself, but these are aids to help me quickly make decisions in play -- kind of defaults, if you will.  But, I unless those notes make it into play, they're not established.  So, unless I've already presented that, say, the Captain is loyal to the Burgomaster, then that loyalty isn't set in stone.  Only once it's in play does it become part of the fiction.  Anything I have in my notes is more like the Pirate Code.




> What does this buy me? Verisimilitude - an increased sense that the world exists outside of and isn't simply being generated for the PCs. Sometimes they try an approach that won't work and bounce hard off it. I don't generally call for rolls that are impossible, so the players are aware when they fail at something that couldn't be accomplished.



Unsurprisingly, I'm going to disagree with you.  Not that you get what you want out of your method -- I believe you do and that's great.  But that verisimilitude is capably of being defined as you have or that my method doesn't generate it in equal abundance. 

First, about your definition.  The world doesn't really exist without the PCs -- if there are no PCs, there's no game, and you've just been writing a story.  So, if you have a world, it exists because of the PCs.  Now, I get what you're driving at, and that's that there's fiction in the world that exists no matter what the PCs do, but, at that point, you're still writing fiction you're just telling it to your players and they have no opportunity to change it.  If they do have an opportunity to change it in play, then we're back to it having been created as a challenge to the PCs, which would be because of the PCs.  I don't think that you can have a coherent definition that is 'exists outside of the PCs.'  

Semantics aside, though, I don't see how you writing down secret notes that you then tell the PC generates a feeling of realness or complexity that cannot be created in play by following PC actions.  For instance, the example @Manbearcat presents has the Captain telling the Burgomaster a hard truth.  If this was written in the GM's notes beforehand, it would be indistinguishable to the players form a situation where the GM invented it on the spot.  And it involves things that aren't the PCs.  There's nothing special about notes that increases a feeling of realness or depth in a game.  

All of that said, though, I do fully understand there's a different feel to these two methods, at least to a GM who sees behind the curtain.  There is certainly a different GM feel to an adventure that has good notes and plays out well compared to a game more discovered in play and completely unscripted.  These feel very different to GM, so I understand your point that the notes method feels better to you (arguably, given how most enter the hobby, it's more comfortable and familiar than better, but that's a different discussion).  However, and this is my point, the fiction created is hard to impossible to distinguish from each other.  Verisimilitude is equally obtainable in each.



> I have not suggested that everything with all possible NPCs must be prepared. What I have said is that for prepared NPCs this is how I handle it. I don't change the fiction just because the players roll well. In the case where the NPC is improvised, I do handle it much as you suggest, where the uncertain fiction is open to being determined by a roll. Even then, certain thing may be impossible, like convincing the ancient red dragon to give you its hoard. It doesn't matter how well you roll, the fiction is not going to reconfigure itself to that extent.



I think perhaps notes was the wrong tack.  You clearly think that NPCs should react according to the GM's ideas about that NPC rather than leaving things to the dice.  Perhaps you don't have a strong feeling about a certain thing and so leave it to the dice, but that doesn't change that if you do have a strong feeling, your intent for the NPC dominates.  Which was my intent when I said NPCs are scripted -- I think this was referred to upthread, I forget by who, as GM-simulation.  The GM controls the simulation of the NPC at all times, even if they decide to occasionally cede control to the dice the authority for saying how an NPC reacts belongs solely to the GM.  I prefer letting things be more open to the mechanics and then fitting the fiction to match.

And, no, there's no way that you could convince an ancient red dragon to give you it's hoard (absent extraordinary circumstance).  That violates both being rooted in the fiction and genre expectations.  You keep circling back to the argument that not doing GM-simulation means that anything is available to a roll, despite being told this is not the case.  At some point, I hope you listen and stop making that argument.


----------



## FrogReaver

Maxperson said:


> Sure.  First I called you out for doing the exact same thing you were calling someone else out for, in the same post you called them out no less.




for the sake of the rest of us watching with popcorn in hand can you elaborate on what specifically you called him out for?


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> for the sake of the rest of us watching with popcorn in hand can you elaborate on what specifically you called him out for?



Can we not?  I'm trying to extricate myself from this already, and egging it on is not really in anyone's interests.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> Can we not?  I'm trying to extricate myself from this already, and egging it on is not really in anyone's interests.




I agree. There's no point keeping anyone wound-up about this.

While I don't think shifting the specifics of the original example help illuminate it, I was clearly misunderstanding the shifting examples, and we all ended up shouting past each other, I suspect.

While I don't think it's great play to have a PC's success at influencing an NPC come by way of another NPC (at least in part because in a situation anything like this I the player might have forgotten that other NPC exists ...) I also don't think it's necessarily bad play--it'll come down to the table, as so many things to.

I don't think any of us here are really as far apart as what "realistic conversation" is, in TRPGs, as this thread makes it seem; I suspect we're using different internal languages, which aren't translating well. I think some of us place more emphasis on genre-fealty than others, too.

As for me, my posts--especially the last ones last night--were really not me at my best. Trying to argue after a bad gaming session (those who say bad gaming is better than no gaming are wrong wrong wrong wrong) that blew up my emotional equilibrium until ... about now, was not a good decision.


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> Yep.  The DM only controls the DM side of things.  The players control the player side of things, which includes the characters that they play.  Over the years I've had a couple DMs come to me, expecting me to turn over character sheets for PCs that I've played in their games.  I've always told those DMs no.



One difference here is that character sheets stay with the DM between sessions anyway, mostly for reasons of practicality.

Which means I've got folders full of old character sheets here, both PC and NPC.  Useful if-when I ever want to do any statistical comparisons or number-crunching.

Old NPCs are mine to recycle into the game as desired.  Old PCs not so much, unless the player agrees first.



> A few times a DM has come and politely asked me if he could use one of my inactive PCs as an NPC in a game with some of his other players.  I usually say yes.  If they ask nicely, they are acknowledging my ownership of the PC.



Exactly; and as DM I've done the same now and then, and received the same response.


----------



## Lanefan

With all this mention of turtles being trotted out, I've got my popcorn handy and am eagerly awaiting the start gun for the turtle derby...


----------



## Fanaelialae

Ovinomancer said:


> I guess I can see how you see that, but that's not what I pulled from @pemerton's questions.  C'est la vie.
> 
> Well, no, if the Captain is established in the fiction (more on this soon), then this would violate narration of results must be grounded in the fiction (and genre appropriate, but betrayal is, so that's not the conflict).  The issue I have here is how your characterize your game world changing -- and I think the conflict is what we consider to be established in the fiction.
> 
> 
> And, here's that conflict.  You treat things that you've decided, but that players do not yet know, as established in the fiction.  I don't.  Unless it's in the world openly, it's up for grabs.  Now, I may very well (and do) make all kinds of notes for myself, but these are aids to help me quickly make decisions in play -- kind of defaults, if you will.  But, I unless those notes make it into play, they're not established.  So, unless I've already presented that, say, the Captain is loyal to the Burgomaster, then that loyalty isn't set in stone.  Only once it's in play does it become part of the fiction.  Anything I have in my notes is more like the Pirate Code.
> 
> 
> 
> Unsurprisingly, I'm going to disagree with you.  Not that you get what you want out of your method -- I believe you do and that's great.  But that verisimilitude is capably of being defined as you have or that my method doesn't generate it in equal abundance.
> 
> First, about your definition.  The world doesn't really exist without the PCs -- if there are no PCs, there's no game, and you've just been writing a story.  So, if you have a world, it exists because of the PCs.  Now, I get what you're driving at, and that's that there's fiction in the world that exists no matter what the PCs do, but, at that point, you're still writing fiction you're just telling it to your players and they have no opportunity to change it.  If they do have an opportunity to change it in play, then we're back to it having been created as a challenge to the PCs, which would be because of the PCs.  I don't think that you can have a coherent definition that is 'exists outside of the PCs.'
> 
> Semantics aside, though, I don't see how you writing down secret notes that you then tell the PC generates a feeling of realness or complexity that cannot be created in play by following PC actions.  For instance, the example @Manbearcat presents has the Captain telling the Burgomaster a hard truth.  If this was written in the GM's notes beforehand, it would be indistinguishable to the players form a situation where the GM invented it on the spot.  And it involves things that aren't the PCs.  There's nothing special about notes that increases a feeling of realness or depth in a game.
> 
> All of that said, though, I do fully understand there's a different feel to these two methods, at least to a GM who sees behind the curtain.  There is certainly a different GM feel to an adventure that has good notes and plays out well compared to a game more discovered in play and completely unscripted.  These feel very different to GM, so I understand your point that the notes method feels better to you (arguably, given how most enter the hobby, it's more comfortable and familiar than better, but that's a different discussion).  However, and this is my point, the fiction created is hard to impossible to distinguish from each other.  Verisimilitude is equally obtainable in each.
> 
> 
> I think perhaps notes was the wrong tack.  You clearly think that NPCs should react according to the GM's ideas about that NPC rather than leaving things to the dice.  Perhaps you don't have a strong feeling about a certain thing and so leave it to the dice, but that doesn't change that if you do have a strong feeling, your intent for the NPC dominates.  Which was my intent when I said NPCs are scripted -- I think this was referred to upthread, I forget by who, as GM-simulation.  The GM controls the simulation of the NPC at all times, even if they decide to occasionally cede control to the dice the authority for saying how an NPC reacts belongs solely to the GM.  I prefer letting things be more open to the mechanics and then fitting the fiction to match.
> 
> And, no, there's no way that you could convince an ancient red dragon to give you it's hoard (absent extraordinary circumstance).  That violates both being rooted in the fiction and genre expectations.  You keep circling back to the argument that not doing GM-simulation means that anything is available to a roll, despite being told this is not the case.  At some point, I hope you listen and stop making that argument.



Yup, the big difference is that I treat my notes as (reasonably) set in stone regardless of whether the players are aware of them, whereas you seem to consider them more as suggestions until they become established with the players.

I disagree that you can't tell the difference. It seems to me from my own experience with improvisation that it would encourage you to hold back on details.  After all, the more the PCs hear about the Captain after they enter town, the less freedom you have to improvise as in the example. Once they hear that he's loyal to the baron, it's established. Whereas, when I prep an area I can be quite generous with the details. That lends depth to the world, IMO. 

That's not to say that the approach in the example doesn't have its own advantages. It caters to the wishes of the players, which they will probably enjoy. We play this game for fun after all, so that's a good thing.

Personally, I think the best approach is found in the middle. Prep some things and have them fixed. Improvise some things and leave them flexible. That way, you keep the players guessing and the wheels turning.


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> One difference here is that character sheets stay with the DM between sessions anyway, mostly for reasons of practicality.




I let the player keep the originals if they want and leave a copy.  It's up to them.

Which means I've got folders full of old character sheets here, both PC and NPC.  Useful if-when I ever want to do any statistical comparisons or number-crunching.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Well, that was my disagreement with the other poster, not you.  Rather, it appears you've been attacking because you disagree with my disagreement with another poster



Just as an FYI conversations, even if you are talking to another, are not private.  Everyone here is a part of them.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> I agree. There's no point keeping anyone wound-up about this.
> 
> While I don't think shifting the specifics of the original example help illuminate it, I was clearly misunderstanding the shifting examples, and we all ended up shouting past each other, I suspect.
> 
> While I don't think it's great play to have a PC's success at influencing an NPC come by way of another NPC (at least in part because in a situation anything like this I the player might have forgotten that other NPC exists ...) I also don't think it's necessarily bad play--it'll come down to the table, as so many things to.




I get why it might seem weird to have things resolve in that way, but I think @Manbearcat 's example was one of creative GMing. It's something I wish I had learned far earlier than I did. 

You look at the stated goal of the player and their character, and that's what the check is for. So a Persuasion check made to convince the Baron that his way might have some issues isn't like an attack roll on the Baron's will.....I think we tend to think of actions having specific targets, and so this or that roll is made to influence/convince/deceive/hit this or that specific person. 

Having another NPC be swayed by the successful roll and then advocate for the PCs to the point that the Baron winds up giving in.....that's achieving what the PC set out to achieve, just not in the exact way that they expected. 

I think finding creative ways to establish success is a huge part of meaningful non-combat interactions. The situations need to be dynamic or else you can simply make one roll and then narrate it.



prabe said:


> I don't think any of us here are really as far apart as what "realistic conversation" is, in TRPGs, as this thread makes it seem; I suspect we're using different internal languages, which aren't translating well. I think some of us place more emphasis on genre-fealty than others, too.
> 
> As for me, my posts--especially the last ones last night--were really not me at my best. Trying to argue after a bad gaming session (those who say bad gaming is better than no gaming are wrong wrong wrong wrong) that blew up my emotional equilibrium until ... about now, was not a good decision.




I think there are just different approaches to play, and different tools that work well for whatever desired approach you have. I think that most of us would agree that some kind of session zero/play expectation convo would need to take place at the start of play, and I think for the most part, a lot of this discussion has been the kind of stuff that would usefully happen then, rather than after the fact.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Fanaelialae said:


> Yup, the big difference is that I treat my notes as (reasonably) set in stone regardless of whether the players are aware of them, whereas you seem to consider them more as suggestions until they become established with the players.
> 
> I disagree that you can't tell the difference. It seems to me from my own experience with improvisation that it would encourage you to hold back on details.  After all, the more the PCs hear about the Captain after they enter town, the less freedom you have to improvise as in the example. Once they hear that he's loyal to the baron, it's established. Whereas, when I prep an area I can be quite generous with the details. That lends depth to the world, IMO.
> 
> That's not to say that the approach in the example doesn't have its own advantages. It caters to the wishes of the players, which they will probably enjoy. We play this game for fun after all, so that's a good thing.
> 
> Personally, I think the best approach is found in the middle. Prep some things and have them fixed. Improvise some things and leave them flexible. That way, you keep the players guessing and the wheels turning.




I think the best advice in regard to prepping notes ahead of time is to "hold on loosely". Have them in mind, but be willing to change them if it makes for a more interesting play experience.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fanaelialae said:


> Yup, the big difference is that I treat my notes as (reasonably) set in stone regardless of whether the players are aware of them, whereas you seem to consider them more as suggestions until they become established with the players.
> 
> I disagree that you can't tell the difference. It seems to me from my own experience with improvisation that it would encourage you to hold back on details.  After all, the more the PCs hear about the Captain after they enter town, the less freedom you have to improvise as in the example. Once they hear that he's loyal to the baron, it's established. Whereas, when I prep an area I can be quite generous with the details. That lends depth to the world, IMO.



What experience do you have with a well run game that uses story now techniques?  Because, if you had that experience, I don't think you'd make this claim.  When I run Blades, for instance, I paint just as rich a tapestry with little to no prep and nothing set in stone until play reveals it as I do when I run 5e and do prep areas and foreshadow things.  I've been speaking in this thread mostly about the techniques that can work in 5e, and, honestly, a true story now style play isn't really possible in 5e -- the system fights it.  So, I don't play 5e that way; I do prep, but I also don't hold prep as sacrosanct until it's presented in play.  This lets me be very flexible to PC actions and I don't feel like I'm corralling play or running a GM-simulation (nothing wrong with this, I just no longer enjoy doing it).

However, when I was discussing verisimilitude, I was reaching further into other games that allow for full story now style play -- no myth play where things are only true if introduced into play (and maybe still able to be challenged).  And I have experience here, as well.  I run Blades no prep, light myth (I use the very loosely detailed default setting of Duskvol) and I can say that the play that emerges there is just as layered and detailed as anything I get in 5e.  It has a different feel on the GM side, naturally, but I see behind the curtain.  But, the fictions created?  Yeah, pretty similar in layers and detail to the world the PCs see.  In fact, I'd say that my Blades game has more layers and detail because it's shared across all of the players rather than just me coming up with it.



> Personally, I think the best approach is found in the middle. Prep some things and have them fixed. Improvise some things and leave them flexible. That way, you keep the players guessing and the wheels turning.



I have absolutely no trouble keeping the players on their toes without fixed, secret prep.  I can keep them on their toes with it.  I don't think this is, in any way, a requirement in any mixture to keep players engaged and surprised by events.[/quote][/QUOTE]


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> I think the best advice in regard to prepping notes ahead of time is to "hold on loosely". Have them in mind, but be willing to change them if it makes for a more interesting play experience.




My own approach is to prep no more than I need about, say, an NPC (the relevant example). I need to know enough to inform my decisions about the NPC's actions; I don't need more than that. Once the NPC has started behaving in ways the PCs can observe/learn about, I try to keep that behavior consistent.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> Just as an FYI conversations, even if you are talking to another, are not private.  Everyone here is a part of them.



Thanks for explaining how message boards work!


----------



## Fanaelialae

hawkeyefan said:


> I think the best advice in regard to prepping notes ahead of time is to "hold on loosely". Have them in mind, but be willing to change them if it makes for a more interesting play experience.



I think I somewhat disagree. I don't necessarily consider my notes completely immutable, but I do need a very good reason to disregard them. Primarily for reasons of verisimilitude, as I described. 

I think plenty of interesting play experiences can arise from sticking to your notes. Having to deal with an offended baron isn't necessarily any less interesting than having the Captain depose him.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> My own approach is to prep no more than I need about, say, an NPC (the relevant example). I need to know enough to inform my decisions about the NPC's actions; I don't need more than that. Once the NPC has started behaving in ways the PCs can observe/learn about, I try to keep that behavior consistent.



Yup, once it's in play, it's no longer prep.  The 'hold on loosely' is more before it's in play -- the part where you use the prep to inform your decisions.  The recommendation here is that you shouldn't be married to your prep, if something better comes along, let go and run with the new thing.  It's not fixed until it enters play.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Ovinomancer said:


> What experience do you have with a well run game that uses story now techniques?  Because, if you had that experience, I don't think you'd make this claim.  When I run Blades, for instance, I paint just as rich a tapestry with little to no prep and nothing set in stone until play reveals it as I do when I run 5e and do prep areas and foreshadow things.  I've been speaking in this thread mostly about the techniques that can work in 5e, and, honestly, a true story now style play isn't really possible in 5e -- the system fights it.  So, I don't play 5e that way; I do prep, but I also don't hold prep as sacrosanct until it's presented in play.  This lets me be very flexible to PC actions and I don't feel like I'm corralling play or running a GM-simulation (nothing wrong with this, I just no longer enjoy doing it).
> 
> However, when I was discussing verisimilitude, I was reaching further into other games that allow for full story now style play -- no myth play where things are only true if introduced into play (and maybe still able to be challenged).  And I have experience here, as well.  I run Blades no prep, light myth (I use the very loosely detailed default setting of Duskvol) and I can say that the play that emerges there is just as layered and detailed as anything I get in 5e.  It has a different feel on the GM side, naturally, but I see behind the curtain.  But, the fictions created?  Yeah, pretty similar in layers and detail to the world the PCs see.  In fact, I'd say that my Blades game has more layers and detail because it's shared across all of the players rather than just me coming up with it.
> 
> 
> I have absolutely no trouble keeping the players on their toes without fixed, secret prep.  I can keep them on their toes with it.  I don't think this is, in any way, a requirement in any mixture to keep players engaged and surprised by events.



Good for you. 

My experience differs. I've run and played in both styles and IME it doesn't produce identical results. Similar perhaps. But different enough that you can often tell if you're looking for it.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fanaelialae said:


> I think I somewhat disagree. I don't necessarily consider my notes completely immutable, but I do need a very good reason to disregard them. Primarily for reasons of verisimilitude, as I described.
> 
> I think plenty of interesting play experiences can arise from sticking to your notes. Having to deal with an offended baron isn't necessarily any less interesting than having the Captain depose him.



Again, verisimilitude, as in a world that feels real, isn't served by following or not following your notes.  That's stuff only you as GM will ever know.  The players only ever get the world presented in play, and it's impossible to tell if a detail is from your notes or made up on the spot in play.

What's gained by sticking to notes is a feeling of constancy for the GM: the world is as you imagined it.  That's fine, nothing wrong with it, but you're confusing a rich, detailed, engaging world with this feeling that it's like you imagined it -- you're confusing your view of the world as a GM as the same as the player's view of the world.  I've been in tightly detailed worlds in games that didn't achieve verisimilitude for me as a player.  I don't think that verisimilitude is at all connected to how well you stick to your notes as a GM.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Ovinomancer said:


> Again, verisimilitude, as in a world that feels real, isn't served by following or not following your notes.  That's stuff only you as GM will ever know.  The players only ever get the world presented in play, and it's impossible to tell if a detail is from your notes or made up on the spot in play.
> 
> What's gained by sticking to notes is a feeling of constancy for the GM: the world is as you imagined it.  That's fine, nothing wrong with it, but you're confusing a rich, detailed, engaging world with this feeling that it's like you imagined it -- you're confusing your view of the world as a GM as the same as the player's view of the world.  I've been in tightly detailed worlds in games that didn't achieve verisimilitude for me as a player.  I don't think that verisimilitude is at all connected to how well you stick to your notes as a GM.



First of all, the DM's enjoyment matters too. So even if it only enhances the DM's sense of verisimilitude as you claim, that's still a win.

Secondly, personally speaking, I disagree. Maybe it works for you. However, the parts of my world that I prep almost always have more depth than things I improvise. That's frequently reflected in feedback I get from players after game. I'm willing to believe that your experience differs, but it doesn't mesh with my own.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fanaelialae said:


> Good for you.
> 
> My experience differs. I've run and played in both styles and IME it doesn't produce identical results. Similar perhaps. But different enough that you can often tell of you're looking for it.



Well, okay, but I was asking what your experience is.  This is because there's some pretty fundamental conceptual differences and your arguments seem to indicate you don't have a lot of experience with the other set.  Not because we're disagreeing, but because the nature of those disagreements would be rather different if you did have experience with the fundamental conceptual differences.  It's not winging a D&D session, which I will agree with you is a good way to end up with a bad experience.  This is because D&D doesn't support no-myth play with it's mechanics, instead using a GM-decides core resolution mechanic.  The GM decides if dice are needed, and what checks are needed, and what DCs are needed, and what resolution narration is needed, etc.  It's a GM-decides game.  Nothing wrong with that, I still run and play 5e primarily, so I clearly have no issue with that.

However, a no-myth game in a system designed to handle it is not a GM-decides game.  The GM is very limited in authority to being able to frame scenes.  After that, the GM's authorities are really in choosing to challenge a player action declaration or not.  If not, it works the way the player wants.  If the GM challenges, the game mechanic is used to determine who gets to determine the parameters of the narration of the outcome.  On a PC success, the player gets to define the narration to be achieving the intent of their action.  On a failure, the GM gets to narrate an outcome, usually to the detriment of the player's intent.  That's a pretty big difference in conception of how these games work.  Firstly, it should be obvious that the GM cannot actually prep for this style of game except very loosely, and then, if play goes in a different direction, must abandon such prep.  This is because the GM has no authority to enforce any outcome, only challenge, which is a fixed mechanic the GM can't modify outside of the already established fiction.  In other words, the GM doesn't set the DC, it's fixed, but may, depending on the fictional state, be able to impose a penalty that follows the current fiction state.  No authority to enforce an outcome means that prep is useless.  This puts a lot more pressure and expectation on the players, because they have to drive the fiction in ways D&D players do not.

So, unless you have experience in a well-run game like this, we're talking past each other.  And by well-run, I don't mean a superb GM, I mean just a competent one.  Superb GMs in this style are an absolute joy, but then that's true of pretty much any style.

What I've been discussing as adjudication in 5e in this thread is informed by the possibilities that no-myth style games can afford and stealing the bits that can actually work in 5e.  One of those is to allow PCs to try things that are grounded in the established fiction and are genre appropriate and test that with the mechanics (which are still largely GM-decides because you set the DC and ability check needed rather than the fixed mechanic in no-myth style games).  You have to hold things not established in play as fluid because what the PCs try might conflict with your prep that you haven't yet introduced, and that may mean you need to abandon that and go with what play presents.  I'll put one of my social encounters up against anyone's, and I don't think you could claim one has more verisimilitude than the other.  I'm only claiming parity, not superiority.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fanaelialae said:


> First of all, the DM's enjoyment matters too. So even if it only enhances the DM's sense of verisimilitude as you claim, that's still a win.
> 
> Secondly, personally speaking, I disagree. Maybe it works for you. However, the parts of my world that I prep almost always have more depth than things I improvise. That's frequently reflected in feedback I get from players after game. I'm willing to believe that your experience differs, but it doesn't mesh with my own.



Of course the GM's enjoyment matters.  Do you think I do not enjoy my games because I don't use prep like you do?  I explicitly made the point that it's good that you're using a style that increases your enjoyment in one of these posts.  It is good.  And I explicitly said it's a difference that can make a difference because of that.

What I'm saying is that it doesn't result in more or less verisimilitude.  It just results in the GM liking that style more or less.  I like it less, but I'll put my verisimilitude up against anyone's.  I'm confident we're in the same ballpark, if not on the same base.


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> Again, verisimilitude, as in a world that feels real, isn't served by following or not following your notes.  That's stuff only you as GM will ever know.  The players only ever get the world presented in play, and it's impossible to tell if a detail is from your notes or made up on the spot in play.



IME it's surprisingly easy, once you've got to know your DM at all.



> What's gained by sticking to notes is a feeling of constancy for the GM: the world is as you imagined it.  That's fine, nothing wrong with it, but you're confusing a rich, detailed, engaging world with this feeling that it's like you imagined it -- you're confusing your view of the world as a GM as the same as the player's view of the world.  I've been in tightly detailed worlds in games that didn't achieve verisimilitude for me as a player.  I don't think that verisimilitude is at all connected to how well you stick to your notes as a GM.



Two steps.

One, the GM needs to have a world believable to her - that 'feeling of constancy'.

Tweo, she then needs to present that to the players in a way believable and constant for them.  This may be the step your previous GM(s) missed out on.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Lanefan said:


> IME it's surprisingly easy, once you've got to know your DM at all.



Only because most GMs approach D&D through prep and so, when they wing things, they are not as comfortable.  A GM comfortable in following the fiction with light prep is not noticeable in the same way.

For me, moving to lighter prep and more following the fiction has lead to a deeper game and one my players have only noticed because it's more engaged with them.  When I talk shop with one of my players, he's often surprised what's prep and what isn't.  

So, no, I don't think this is a true statement.



> Two steps.
> 
> One, the GM needs to have a world believable to her - that 'feeling of constancy'.
> 
> Tweo, she then needs to present that to the players in a way believable and constant for them.  This may be the step your previous GM(s) missed out on.



Yes, but following your notes doesn't necessarily lead to 1, and certainly doesn't lead to 2.  That's my point.  It might lead to 1 and 2 for you, and that's great, but nothing about the approach guarantees that outcome, and nothing about a different approach means a different GM can't get to 1 and 2 just fine.  I do.


----------



## pemerton

Fanaelialae said:


> The Captain isn't necessarily going to turn on the baron just because the PCs ask.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You're extremely unlikely to convince the ancient red dragon to give you it's hoard.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't think that players necessarily should get what they want just because they want it. The fiction of the world matters too.



No one has said _they get it because they want it._. They've said _they can get what they want by succeeding on appropritae action declarations_.

With the ancient red dragon, has an appropriate action been declared? If the PC is a demigod threatening the dragon, perhaps yes. If the PC is the only one who can lift the curse that will blah blah blah blah blah, also perhaps yes. There are many ways interests can intersect or leverage arise. If the PCs is an anonymous and irrelevant 1st level fighter then the real question to me is _why is the GM framing this scene_?

But in any event: if the scene is well-framed, and nevertheless the GM has decided that something can't happen _regardless of player action declaration _or even moreso that _nothing can happen to influence the NPC_ whatever action is delcared, to me that seems like a railorad. The fiction that is mattering in that case is the GM's predetermination of what happens next.



Maxperson said:


> they aren't equivalent things.  NPCs are killable, just like orcs.  Their houses are passable, just like forests.  However, orc =/= terrain =/= NPCs.  Different things can be treated differently and that's okay.



If the GM decides that a particular orc cannot be killed by application of the resolution mechanics - eg no matter what the players roll to hit, the GM is resolved to declare it a miss - I would call that railroading.

If the GM decides that a particular forest is not passable - eg no matter what actions the PCs declare about drawing the machetes to cut through underbrush, reading the compasses, etc the GM will narrate that they have failed to make iany headway - I would be very curious as to what is going on. If the GM is trying to hard frame some other scene or context, why are the players declaring these forest-passing actions? At best something has gone badly wrong with the GM's attempt to frame the scene; at worst we have a railroad.

If the GM decides that a particular NPC will always do X or always do Y - s/he cannot be influenced by a PC regardless of what actions the players declare - to me that looks like a railroad through-and-through. Whatever the players do, they can't affect the fiction except to push it along some path or other already decided by the GM. To me the whole point of a RPG is it's _not _a choose-your-own adventure.



Fenris-77 said:


> Like traps, NPCs are more useful when you have telegraphing, or information of some kind to work with, either before hand or gained during interaction, that you can use to help guide a dynamic social encounter. Or they can be black box that has responses to things, but not for reasons that are made available, forcing PCs to play the 20 questions game to try and figure things out.



I don't think these are the only two options. Or maybe I don't know what you mean by _telegraphin information gained during interaction_ - because you contrast that with _playing the 20 questions game_ but I'm not sure what contrast you are drawing.

My own preference is to have the NPC presented by reference to a genre-appropriate role or achetype - _the bishop_, _the leader of the sorcerous cabal_, _the ship's captain who has brought his wife on board despite the objections of the crew_, etc - and then to let the details emerge during play.

I posted a number of actual play examples upthread. that show what I mean here. Eg how does Sir Lionheart - _the proud and famous knight who is blocking the bridge to all comers_ - respond to a squire who tries to push past him? Turn him back? Squash him? Knight him so they can joust? It turns out that it's the lattermost. But we didn't know that until the scene was actually being resolved.



Ovinomancer said:


> The character was trying to insult the Burgomaster to get the Burgomaster to reconsider his happiness campaign.  The character did insult the Burgomaster.  The Burgomaster is now reconsidering his happiness campaign.  I don't understand why you say the PC didn't do something -- he enabled the Captain to reveal a truth to the Burgomaster that aligns with the PC's intent for their action.  Indeed, without the PC's insult, this revelation is impossible because the Burgomaster doesn't broach it with the Captain.  Your complaint seems to be that unless the PC intended this exact sequence of events, you're somehow usurping control of the PC by narrating what other NPCs do in reaction to the PC?  Again, your restrictions mean that only the target of the PC's action can ever have any reaction to what the PC does.
> 
> Let's turn this around.  If the PC fails, and the Burgomaster does the same thing -- calls for the Captain, relates the insult, and orders the PC incarcerated -- according to your restrictions above this would be baffling to the PC because the Captain wasn't present for the insult.  So, when the Captain moves to seize the PC, this would be just as bad -- now the Captain is doing something when we wasn't even there when the PC insulted the Burgomaster!
> 
> Clearly, this is ridiculous, but you can't have it both ways.



Fully agreed. I made this exact point upthread. I don't think narration of success and narration of failure are identical in all respects, but in this case the structural parallel is obvious.



Ovinomancer said:


> Arguing this is bad play is saying that normal conversations, where people try to make a point against a recalcitrant other only to find sudden support from a third party, turning the discussion, is not something that you want your RPGs to be able to emulate.



And this goes right back to my comment, upthread, that I don't see why social encounters in a RPG shouldn't resemble social interactions in the source fiction.


----------



## Fenris-77

@pemerton - I'm talking about the kind of information that would normally be gained during the course of a social interaction. In actual practice for me this tends to look like making plain that the NPC has objections, or reservations, or perhaps is being evasive, or whatever (in the case of the thread topic paranoid etc). I'll impart this info in the form of roleplaying up to a point, but I also use straight editorialization - he seems confident and relaxed, or _you think he's hiding something_, say, or _he's seems afraid of something, or he's wringing his hands and fidgeting in his seat like he'd rather be anywhere but here_. In an actual conversation there are things you can intuit or even just notice about people I guess is what I'm talking about. What I want to avoid is a series of questions like is he scared? Is he angry? Is he sweating? If he fidgeting? And on and on like that. Questions that feel like the characters aren't there. What I give them is based on their approach and possibly a roll, lets call it reactions and first impressions, and then the ball is back in their court to decide what to do about it.

I know that isn't a revolutionary idea, but I try to avoid too many rolls, and too many questions about simple or basic things. I want the players to make decisions based on information (or suspicions at least).


----------



## hawkeyefan

Fanaelialae said:


> I think I somewhat disagree. I don't necessarily consider my notes completely immutable, but I do need a very good reason to disregard them. Primarily for reasons of verisimilitude, as I described.
> 
> I think plenty of interesting play experiences can arise from sticking to your notes. Having to deal with an offended baron isn't necessarily any less interesting than having the Captain depose him.




Yeah, I’m not saying to always abandon your notes. If you have ideas that are engaging and don’t disrupt the flow of the game, have at it. I prep when I run 5E, so I’m not anti-prep.

What I mean by “hold on loosely”, is more along the lines of treating your prep as a rough draft. Maybe it’s as awesome as the game is likely to get....in which case, yeah run it as is! In other cases, it may not be as good as it can be. If so, leave yourself the option to change things. 

Nothing’s set in stone until it’s introduced in play. (And technically it’s not even set in stone then, either, but @Lanefan may hear me say that and if so, the thread will have yet another tangent). So until it’s established in play, everything is mutable. 

I know that making a change on the fly could have larger ramifications for other things you’ve planned. Two things on that. One, it’s okay...you’ll get it all to work. Two, maybe consider not prepping so far in advance.

Personally, I think a big part of the issue given in the OP is that the DM tried to adhere too strongly to the way the Baron is presented in the book. Had he changed things a bit, sure they may have contradicted the book....but the game may not have suffered this disruption to play. The players aren’t going to read the book after and then say “hey that Baron wasn’t as implacable as he should have been WTF?!?!” 

Your notes are no different.  

So I’m not saying not to prep, and not to let things play out per the things you’ve prepped. But consider how and what you prepare, and then consider the flow of play at the table, and how the PCs have influenced or changed things, or how they’ve reacted to the fictional world. Change things if it makes sense to do so, or if playing them out as expected will be a problem.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> This isn't quite true.  The fictional success does have a causal relationship, it's more that the causal relationship may have been heretofore unknown.  It still needs to follow the established fiction and be genre appropriate.  The example with the Captain, for instance, still directly hinges on the insult, so it's rooted in play, even if it introduces a previously unknown causal relationship that the Captain chooses now to talk to the Burgomaster about the town's agreement with the insult.
> 
> Narrating that a tiny meteor fragment suddenly impacts the Burgomaster right after the PC's insult that causes miniscule brain damage that leaves the Burgomaster amenable to the PC's message would not be acceptable because it isn't grounded in the fictional state as established and isn't genre appropriate.




I appreciate the feedback but I don't understand why that's not an acceptable success state in the "fictional success" model.  In such a model the success determined the baron would be amenable and the DM narrates how that occurs.  Now I'm not saying it would be a particularly good success state to choose but to claim it's inconsistent with that methodology is hard for me to see.



> It is more fluid, but it's not wide open.  And, I say this as someone that went through a similar evolution to what you describe, almost exactly.  I, maybe, have had a bit more time to chew on the concepts, which might explain any difference?  Have you tried PbtA games? They really thrive on this adjudication style.




Never done a PbtA game.  But I'm just not seeing what keeps such a methodology from being wide open - other than my already stated support for the notion that it's typically best when such a methodology is grounded in causal relationships with your action being the *direct* cause.

If I was to go down the path of defining I would suggest a kind of hierarchy where a 1st order causal relationship is one where your action directly causes the success state to be reached - directly convincing the baron to change his mind with your words.  Then there would be a 2nd order causal relationship where your action causes something that happen that then directly causes the success state to be reached - your action triggering the call for guards whose actions then move you into the success state.  Then I would say that there are 3rd order causal relationships, ones where the success state is reached even more indirectly than that.  Then there would be actual non-casual relationships which your meteorite example would fall under.

So I think using the word non-casual before was probably not accurate on my part as in every case but the last there was some in-fiction chain of causality that could be traced.  What I really meant when I said non-causality is non-1st-order causality.  Thanks for helping me clarify my thoughts.


----------



## FrogReaver

Thinking more about the discussion of causality.  Say you try to jump across a 50 ft canyon.  The DM allows a check and you roll a 20.  You fail to jump far enough, but a friendly angel grabs you from certain death and flys you on to the other side.  This is a 2nd order causal relationship as I defined above because your jump action directly led to the actions of the angel.  

But this doesn't feel right does it?  It's a bit too spectacular I think.  Which means to me that a success state framed in even a 2nd order causal way is not enough to properly constrain the "fictional success" model to lead to good success states.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> If the GM decides that a particular orc cannot be killed by application of the resolution mechanics - eg no matter what the players roll to hit, the GM is resolved to declare it a miss - I would call that railroading.




And for combat, it would be.  For skill resolution and NPC behavior, it isn't or at least doesn't have to be.  It depends on why the answer is no.



> If the GM decides that a particular forest is not passable - eg no matter what actions the PCs declare about drawing the machetes to cut through underbrush, reading the compasses, etc the GM will narrate that they have failed to make iany headway - I would be very curious as to what is going on. If the GM is trying to hard frame some other scene or context, why are the players declaring these forest-passing actions? At best something has gone badly wrong with the GM's attempt to frame the scene; at worst we have a railroad.




Cool, cool.  Still not the same as an NPC reaction or skill check.



> If the GM decides that a particular NPC will always do X or always do Y - s/he cannot be influenced by a PC regardless of what actions the players declare - to me that looks like a railroad through-and-through.




Nope!  The guard captain who was an orphan saved by the orphanage and has a soft spot for all the orphans there is simply not going to burn them all to death regardless of what you try when you attempt to influence him to do so.  It's not railroading to simply inform the player that there's no chance of success.  You might be able to influence him to get rid of the drunk corporal, though.



> Whatever the players do, they can't affect the fiction except to push it along some path or other already decided by the GM. To me the whole point of a RPG is it's _not _a choose-your-own adventure.



That's not true.  There are many avenues that are outside known prep.  Nobody can write down every or even anywhere remotely close to every possible reaction, regardless of what @Ovinomancer thinks.  The DM will know some things that will auto fail, some that will auto succeed, but the vast majority are going to be unknown and many of those will push things down paths other than what the DM has planned.


----------



## FrogReaver

Shifting back to 1st order causal relationships for a moment.  They aren't actually constrained to lead to "good" success states either.  What they do that higher order causal relationships do not is limit the spectacular (at least when preceded by a rule where dice rolling can be exempted for auto failure and auto success).

So perhaps the guiding principle should really be, choose the most fun and least spectacular success state that you can when narrating success.  I think that accounts for the competing priorities of fun and verisimilitude and leaves open success states from all orders of causality.


----------



## FrogReaver

Maxperson said:


> That's not true.  There are many avenues that are outside known prep.  Nobody can write down every or even anywhere remotely close to every possible reaction, regardless of what @Ovinomancer thinks.  The DM will know some things that will auto fail, some that will auto succeed, but the vast majority are going to be unknown and many of those will push things down paths other than what the DM has planned.




So, this I agree with on the surface but want to urge caution because IMO DM's are often too simplistic and even biased in their treatment of what NPC personalities in relation to what they definitely will and will not do.  I think there needs to be certain limitations on the ranges of NPC reactions (such as you can't convince this merchant to give you all his goods) - but I think anything that is going to cause auto success or failure in relation to NPC's needs to be very carefully considered as it usually isn't serving an actual purpose and likely is going to be too limiting on the range and tone of social interaction the players may want to have.  That's part of the issue many of us have with the impossible to insult burgomaster that this thread was started about.  

I think that in most games if a player ever played his PC as strictly to predetermined personality as the DM does his NPC's that such a player would be quickly booted for disruptive behavior / bad faith play.  Does anyone disagree?


----------



## Maxperson

FrogReaver said:


> So, this I agree with on the surface but want to urge caution because IMO DM's are often too simplistic and even biased in their treatment of what NPC personalities in relation to what they definitely will and will not do.  I think there needs to be certain limitations on the ranges of NPC reactions (such as you can't convince this merchant to give you all his goods) - but I think anything that is going to cause auto success or failure in relation to NPC's needs to be very carefully considered as it usually isn't serving an actual purpose and likely is going to be too limiting on the range and tone of social interaction the players may want to have.  That's part of the issue many of us have with the impossible to insult burgomaster that this thread was started about.



I agree with this.  I don't say auto no with NPCs all that often.  Usually there is a roll involved or a fair amount of the time, a flat out yes.



> I think that in most games if a player ever played his PC as strictly to predetermined personality as the DM does his NPC's that such a player would be quickly booted for disruptive behavior / bad faith play.  Does anyone disagree?




Possibly.  I play with players who stick pretty true to their PCs personalities, goals, etc.  Sometimes one does get kicked out or walk out of a group over it.  That's rare, though.  Usually they find a way to stay in character and make it work.


----------



## FrogReaver

One meta observation.

I'm not sure if it's being cooped up in our homes for social isolation, rioting let ya'll blow off some steam, fear of the end of the world as we know it due to covid-19, or what.... but this is one of the longest running discussions on EnWorld that hasn't been derailed by petty back and forth bickering.  I am impressed!  

Perhaps we should take names of who is not here... I jest, well maybe halfway jest


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> Nope!  The guard captain who was an orphan saved by the orphanage and has a soft spot for all the orphans there is simply not going to burn them all to death regardless of what you try when you attempt to influence him to do so.  It's not railroading to simply inform the player that there's no chance of success.  You might be able to influence him to get rid of the drunk corporal, though.




So, do you think that a minor NPC is typically going to have:
a) such a detailed background
b) that also relates to potential actions in the present game
c) that will effectively shut down a very possible action?

I mean, I've never been in a game where any NPC had such strong feelings about orphanages that influenced their view about an actual orphanage that the PCs wanted to burn down. This seems like an absurd example that isn't really likely to come up. 

But it does offer a good example of how these kinds of details can be decided in play. Instead of the Gm deciding all this ahead of time about this relatively minor NPC, he can instead call for a roll when the PCs interact with him, and then based on the results, some relevant detail can be decided to explain the result. If one has not been determined ahead of time, then the success or failure of the PC can help shape the NPCs traits.




Maxperson said:


> That's not true.  There are many avenues that are outside known prep.  Nobody can write down every or even anywhere remotely close to every possible reaction, regardless of what @Ovinomancer thinks.  The DM will know some things that will auto fail, some that will auto succeed, but the vast majority are going to be unknown and many of those will push things down paths other than what the DM has planned.




This seems far more reasonable, and lends itself much more to what I've just described above. All those middle examples that aren't auto succeed or auto fail, typically rolls are what's involved. So those rolls can do double duty.....let us know if the PCs succeed or fail, and also possibly the reasons why.


----------



## hawkeyefan

FrogReaver said:


> I think that in most games if a player ever played his PC as strictly to predetermined personality as the DM does his NPC's that such a player would be quickly booted for disruptive behavior / bad faith play.  Does anyone disagree?




This is a great observation and I don't disagree at all. One note PCs are involved in far more of the game than a one note NPC may be....so they can certainly be much more of a burden.

I also think if a GM suggested to a player that they were being too flexible with their character's actions, that they weren't adhering strictly enough to established behaviors or to alignment, the player would likely not take that too kindly. I say this with 5e and more modern versions of D&D in mind, where alignment was not as essential and impactful as it used to be.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> So, do you think that a minor NPC is typically going to have:
> a) such a detailed background




It's not very detailed.  A little blurb about his childhood. 



> b) that also relates to potential actions in the present game




Backgrounds often will and often will not relate to potential actions in the present game. That's the nature of them. 



> c) that will effectively shut down a very possible action?




Not a chance.  Why on Earth would I want to shut down every possible action when I've been posting that it won't shut down every possible action. 

I mean, I've never been in a game where any NPC had such strong feelings about orphanages that influenced their view about an actual orphanage that the PCs wanted to burn down. This seems like an absurd example that isn't really likely to come up.  You even quoted me saying this...

"The DM will know some things that will auto fail, some that will auto succeed, but the vast majority are going to be unknown and many of those will push things down paths other than what the DM has planned."

...and yet you still asked me about shutting everything down.  Weird.



> This seems far more reasonable, and lends itself much more to what I've just described above. All those middle examples that aren't auto succeed or auto fail, typically rolls are what's involved. So those rolls can do double duty.....let us know if the PCs succeed or fail, and also possibly the reasons why.



LOL  I answer as I go down, so I hadn't seen this when I wrote the above.  Still not sure why you left C in there, though.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> It's not very detailed.  A little blurb about his childhood.
> 
> 
> 
> Backgrounds often will and often will not relate to potential actions in the present game. That's the nature of them.
> 
> 
> 
> Not a chance.  Why on Earth would I want to shut down every possible action when I've been posting that it won't shut down every possible action.
> 
> I mean, I've never been in a game where any NPC had such strong feelings about orphanages that influenced their view about an actual orphanage that the PCs wanted to burn down. This seems like an absurd example that isn't really likely to come up.  You even quoted me saying this...
> 
> "The DM will know some things that will auto fail, some that will auto succeed, but the vast majority are going to be unknown and many of those will push things down paths other than what the DM has planned."
> 
> ...and yet you still asked me about shutting everything down.  Weird.
> 
> 
> LOL  I answer as I go down, so I hadn't seen this when I wrote the above.  Still not sure why you left C in there, though.




I didn't say all actions, I said one that may be declared. Again, I don't think PCs are going to request the burning of an orphanage....but whatever it may be, having some detail of the NPCs background crafted to be a block on a certain action that may come up seems like a bad idea. 

Like a merchant whose parents were killed by haggling, and when the PCs try to haggle with him, he kicks them out of his shop so he can weep for a while.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> This is a great observation and I don't disagree at all. One note PCs are involved in far more of the game than a one note NPC may be....so they can certainly be much more of a burden.




This is true, in principle, but if all of a campaign's NPCs are beyond one-note to at least the border of monomania, it's ... tiring.

Yes, I've been in a campaign like that. Recently, even.

It's one thing if an NPC has quirks, or hard boundaries, or even is annoying (I had an information broker sell the PCs information they already knew), but having each and every NPC be implacably monomaniacal is an entirely other thing.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> I didn't say all actions, I said one that may be declared. Again, I don't think PCs are going to request the burning of an orphanage....but whatever it may be, having some detail of the NPCs background crafted to be a block on a certain action that may come up seems like a bad idea.




I think it depends on the action/s and the context. It isn't necessarily a horrible thing if a GM decides during prep that a given NPC won't do [thing], even if the PCs ask, no matter how the PCs ask; it just needs to be ... thought about and thought through.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> I think it depends on the action/s and the context. It isn't necessarily a horrible thing if a GM decides during prep that a given NPC won't do [thing], even if the PCs ask, no matter how the PCs ask; it just needs to be ... thought about and thought through.




Yeah, I agree. My example was a joke but I think it displays what I mean. The GM has to consider such factors (NPC background details) and how they’re likely to interact with potential actions in play. 

There may be a reason to have such a detail in place that may be relevant, but any time that is the case, you’re effectively limiting the available actions for the PCs. Which may or may not be good.....as you say, it deserves some thought.


----------



## Manbearcat

FrogReaver said:


> Thinking more about the discussion of causality.  Say you try to jump across a 50 ft canyon.  The DM allows a check and you roll a 20.  You fail to jump far enough, but a friendly angel grabs you from certain death and flys you on to the other side.  This is a 2nd order causal relationship as I defined above because your jump action directly led to the actions of the angel.
> 
> But this doesn't feel right does it?  It's a bit too spectacular I think.  Which means to me that a success state framed in even a 2nd order causal way is not enough to properly constrain the "fictional success" model to lead to good success states.




I've looked through the thread and most of what I would have said in replies to others has been covered (and covered well), so I'm going to jump on this very interesting tangent (which is conversation I'm a big fan of and its related to the greater conversation here).

What about this?  What if your PC is a Cleric or a Paladin?  Would divine intercession there feel thematically fulfilling to the player and thematically appropriate for this action resolution outcome you've devised above?

What if you're a Druid or a Barbarian and either an Air Elemental manifests or the Primal Beast manifests as a massive tiger (like Battlecat) and you land upon it in your leap to stride the extra distance?

With Fighters and Rogues (that aren't Epic tier) you're likely still reliant upon 1st order causal relationships (you're endowed by an athletic prowess that is at the extreme tail of the distribution of even the most potent athletes).


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> I didn't say all actions, I said one that may be declared. Again, I don't think PCs are going to request the burning of an orphanage....but whatever it may be, having some detail of the NPCs background crafted to be a block on a certain action that may come up seems like a bad idea.
> 
> Like a merchant whose parents were killed by haggling, and when the PCs try to haggle with him, he kicks them out of his shop so he can weep for a while.



I think that's a rather cool idea and would see what I could do for the merchant.  It's a great roleplaying opportunity.


----------



## FrogReaver

Manbearcat said:


> I've looked through the thread and most of what I would have said in replies to others has been covered (and covered well), so I'm going to jump on this very interesting tangent (which is conversation I'm a big fan of and its related to the greater conversation here).
> 
> What about this?  What if your PC is a Cleric or a Paladin?  Would divine intercession there feel thematically fulfilling to the player and thematically appropriate for this action resolution outcome you've devised above?
> 
> What if you're a Druid or a Barbarian and either an Air Elemental manifests or the Primal Beast manifests as a massive tiger (like Battlecat) and you land upon it in your leap to stride the extra distance?
> 
> With Fighters and Rogues (that aren't Epic tier) you're likely still reliant upon 1st order causal relationships (you're endowed by an athletic prowess that is at the extreme tail of the distribution of even the most potent athletes).




I think those are good questions and especially the cleric one gave me pause.

To answer I think I have to talk about when it's good to introduce highly fantastical success states.  It seems to me that the more fantastical success states should primarily only be considered when stakes are high, when they will be fun and when the it's more believable that you needed the fantastical to overcome this particular obstacle in the way you attempted than that you were capable of overcoming it via a 1st order causal success.

So when I say it doesn't feel right for a PC to jump across a canyon and have angels carry him the rest of the way due to his athletics success - what I mean is that such a success state should be used rarely and shouldn't be typical because I do ultimately believe that very particular circumstances could merit using such a fantastical success state.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> I think those are good questions and especially the cleric one gave me pause.
> 
> To answer I think I have to talk about when it's good to introduce highly fantastical success states.  It seems to me that the more fantastical success states should primarily only be considered when stakes are high, when they will be fun and when the it's more believable that you needed the fantastical to overcome this particular obstacle in the way you attempted than that you were capable of overcoming it via a 1st order causal success.
> 
> So when I say it doesn't feel right for a PC to jump across a canyon and have angels carry him the rest of the way due to his athletics success - what I mean is that such a success state should be used rarely and shouldn't be typical because I do ultimately believe that very particular circumstances could merit using such a fantastical success state.



I'm going to reiterate that a declared action must be rooted in the fiction and genre appropriate.  The 50 foot jump attempt seems genre inappropriate for a standard D&D game, especially if a maximum check is insufficient on it's own.  So, starting rocky.  But, it may be genre appropriate to receive supernatural aid.  That's a question for you.  Then we look to the fiction.  Aid needs to be rooted here in that such aid must be something that aligns with existing fiction.  If you're evil, it's not well rooted an angel will help you.

Finally, we need to talk about this approach in terms of system.  I did the above for D&D, a system with a strong GM decides core mechanic.  Actions must pass the GM's fiction and genre filters.  This is because the resolution mechanics are based on what the GM decides, both DC and what ability check is used.  If the GM allows a roll, it already passed his filters.  If it does not, then the GM is right to narrate autofailure.

In other systems, the GM does not decide.  Here, though, there are tge sane fiction and genre filters, but their everyone's responsibility.  If the action to jump 50' is acceptable to the table, then success on the mechanic is success, and it's now the responsibility of whoever has narration authority to narrate a result the both succeeds and aligns to the fuction and genre.

I do think your suggestion to be as straightfirward in action resolution as possible is a good bit of guidance, but offer a quicker formulation: KISS.  I think, though, that you should be aware of opportunities to both keep it simple but also spice it up.  I view the Captain example as such.


----------



## Fanaelialae

FrogReaver said:


> So, this I agree with on the surface but want to urge caution because IMO DM's are often too simplistic and even biased in their treatment of what NPC personalities in relation to what they definitely will and will not do.  I think there needs to be certain limitations on the ranges of NPC reactions (such as you can't convince this merchant to give you all his goods) - but I think anything that is going to cause auto success or failure in relation to NPC's needs to be very carefully considered as it usually isn't serving an actual purpose and likely is going to be too limiting on the range and tone of social interaction the players may want to have.  That's part of the issue many of us have with the impossible to insult burgomaster that this thread was started about.
> 
> I think that in most games if a player ever played his PC as strictly to predetermined personality as the DM does his NPC's that such a player would be quickly booted for disruptive behavior / bad faith play.  Does anyone disagree?



I disagree that it's a problem when used with discretion. 

Let's use the baron as an example. This is a character who isn't central to the campaign. The players could hypothetically play through the module successfully without ever even meeting the baron (to the best of my knowledge). Within that context, I don't think there's anything wrong with him having an auto-failure trigger, particularly as long as it is telegraphed (as it is likely to be in this scenario). Despite ruling a town, he's a minor and relatively unimportant NPC.

This is where the comparison with PCs falls apart I think. Yes, you wouldn't want a PC in your game like that. But there's a big difference between an NPC who appears frequently in your game and one who is likely to be a one-off. The former is in some ways comparable to a PC, while the latter really isn't. 

Don't get me wrong, you wouldn't want to do this with a majority of characters. Nor should it typically be a trait of important or recurring NPCs. You certainly wouldn't want a game like @prabe mentioned playing in, where all the NPCs behaved this way (I'm sorry, that sounds like it was an awful experience).

I don't see it as being much different from having an ancient red dragon who will attack if she catches the PCs trying to steal anything from her hoard. Is there anyone who considers that unfair? Does it become unfair if the PCs have a klepto rogue in the party? To me, it would seem strange and un-dragon-like for an evil and greedy dragon to be merciful towards thieves. Now certainly, I'm open to the possibility that the dragon doesn't attack but rather uses other measures to punish the thieves. However, I don't see attacking as being out of line either. Forgive-and-forget is not really an option though.

I think, like many things, it has a place in the game when used with consideration and moderation.


----------



## Fanaelialae

pemerton said:


> No one has said _they get it because they want it._. They've said _they can get what they want by succeeding on appropritae action declarations_.
> 
> With the ancient red dragon, has an appropriate action been declared? If the PC is a demigod threatening the dragon, perhaps yes. If the PC is the only one who can lift the curse that will blah blah blah blah blah, also perhaps yes. There are many ways interests can intersect or leverage arise. If the PCs is an anonymous and irrelevant 1st level fighter then the real question to me is _why is the GM framing this scene_?
> 
> But in any event: if the scene is well-framed, and nevertheless the GM has decided that something can't happen _regardless of player action declaration _or even moreso that _nothing can happen to influence the NPC_ whatever action is delcared, to me that seems like a railorad. The fiction that is mattering in that case is the GM's predetermination of what happens next.



It's only railroading if the players have been railroaded. 

Let's say the players notice a sleeping dragon while exploring a series of caves. They walk over to the dragon, waking it, and demand its hoard. Without a roll, the dragon declines the request. Have the players been railroaded? I think not. They could have ignored the dragon, or woken it up and tried to bribe it into revealing information about the nearby area. The fact that the DM predetermined that the request for its hoard is not an option does not suggest even a whiff of railroading to me. The DM is just roleplaying the dragon, one of whose traits is an avaricious love of treasure. In the case where the players bribe it for information, this can even work to their benefit and be automatically successful, no check required. 

I think a lot of the negativity towards this aspect of NPCs is because we've focused pretty much exclusively on the auto-fail aspect of NPCs with unyielding character traits. Is there anyone who disapproves of character traits which, when properly leveraged by the players, result in them automatically succeeding?

If there are traits that result in automatic failure, then the converse is (or at least should be) true. There will be NPCs whose personality traits allow the players to automatically succeed when played to. Like the dragon who is willing to part with information in exchange for treasure. 

I don't see how that has anything to do with railroading. It's railroading in the same sense that putting walls in your dungeon is railroading. I mean, yes, improperly applied (a dungeon consisting of one long corridor with no choices) it could result in railroading. 

However, I don't think it remotely necessitates railroading. It's simply setting limits on what the NPC will or will not do (which is part of giving them a personality). Much like what the walls do for a dungeon.


----------



## prabe

Fanaelialae said:


> I disagree that it's a problem when used with discretion.
> 
> This is where the comparison with PCs falls apart I think. Yes, you wouldn't want a PC in your game like that. But there's a big difference between an NPC who appears frequently in your game and one who is likely to be a one-off. The former is in some ways comparable to a PC, while the latter really isn't.
> 
> I think, like many things, it has a place in the game when used with consideration and moderation.




I'm willing to give a GM a little slack for the occasional one-note NPC, especially in a game where they have primary (if not sole) narrative authority for the world--that's a lot to keep track of, no shame in a shortcut here and there.


----------



## Fenris-77

I think you need to be nuanced when you're talking about second order causal relationships. The example of the Captain is on one end of that spectrum. The DM could have easily inserted a phrase like _Sir, I could not help but overhear..._ and everything is shiny. Even easier if the Captain was actually in the room. Those make sense and I don't think anyone's immersion is being kicked in the face there at all. However, once we approach the other end of the spectrum, where we are now talking about divine aid and other things that are more in the _deus ex machina_ camp, I think DMs need to be very careful. I also think that the notion that success can extend past what is circumscribed by the rules also needs to handled with the deftest of touches.

Part of this discussion centers on the idea of automatic failure. @Ovinomancer has correctly identified the sort of adjudication mechanic in question for D&D, that of GM decides, and I think he also makes an excellent point that the fiction should still be your core point of reference. There are really two examples in play here, and I think they are somewhat different. First, we have the impossible jump, and second we have the intractable NPC. The main difference there is that in the former case the rules themselves prescribe jumping distance, and not just a rule, but a very player facing rule, one tied to a core stat. The stakes of a PC action declaration that_ I am going to attempt to jump the 50' chasm_ thus has a built-in and pretty obvious failure state - i.e. that the rules say you can't. That is not to say that divine aid or somesuch couldn't be appropriate in some cases, but, simply put, the player is announcing that he is going to attempt a task that he _knows_ to be impossible, essentially throwing that in the DMs lap and daring him to allow failure. Perhaps he prays to his god, or does some deep knee needs to warm up, but that's window dressing for most characters and most fictional frames. Except in some very specific dramatic situations I don't think it's appropriate or necessary for the DM to adjudicate success there. This is very much in the shooting an arrow at the moon set of examples. The number of cases where the fiction will override the basic impossibility of the action are very few.

The example of the intractable NPC is very different I think, for a number of reasons. Let's set aside for the moment the conversational equivalent of the moon arrow, which includes things like asking the dragon to give you his horde for no reason, or asking an implacable and evil foe to start putting flowers in the barrels of guns. Before we set those examples aside, it's worth noting that they are already different from the chasm jump in one important respect - the _rules_ do not say the action is impossible, and there is thus no rules-mandated failure state. We have moved into the realm of ultimate power - DM fiat. For the most part, those extremely unlikely examples we are setting aside are not impossible due to the rules, but rather for reasons that might be branded common sense - Dragons do not generally give away their hordes. I would submit that this is still broadly similar to the chasm jump though, as most players should realize that its not going to happen on a simple ask, no matter how charming you are, and I don't think that's really an example of an intractable NPC either. That leaves us with cases of intractable character traits, the discussion of which requires a few more tools.

I think the notion of intractable character traits is really striking to the heart of social interaction in general, and how different styles of play, and different methods of NPC and encounter building start to become of paramount importance. First, we need to look at what an intractable character trait actually is, and what that should mean for adjudication social interaction. Lets say we have an NPC who has been given the trait _Devoted - will not betray his lord for any reason. _That seems pretty intractable, right? It really isn't though. In order to frame actions and responses we need to talk about motivation and objections. Could a character like that be lied to, be convinced that action A is protecting his lord when it really isn't? Of course. Could he possibly be persuaded that allowing the PCs past his station is the right thing to do because his lord's life is actually in danger? Of course. Could he be convinced to fatally poison his lord's wine, for any reason? No, he couldn't. So intractable only really applies up to the point where the NPC's motivation to accede to a request overcomes their natural reluctance to follow the rules, or to put it another way, it applies until the fictional frame is shifted enough that their intractable trait is no longer the primary objection. In addition to reframing to overcome objections, there is also the idea of leverage, which comes into play much more strongly in the case of neutral or hostile NPCs. The easy example there is that fear for one's life is leverage that can overcome a lot of seemingly intractable character traits, but also in the mix are fear of embarrassment, greed, threats to cherished possessions/people, the prospect of advancement, appeals to authority, and a bunch of other things. 

Given the rather long list of methods the PCs might use to circumvent, modify, or otherwise overcome even the most intractable NPC, I don't think it makes a lot of sense for the DM to rule by fiat that the action is impossible. You could certainly start with a response that indexes a complete refusal by the NPC to comply, but that doesn't mean that a clever party might not be able to find away around that refusal. In most cases I think it's appropriate to leave at least _some_ room in the fiction for success.


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> What about this?  What if your PC is a Cleric or a Paladin?  Would divine intercession there feel thematically fulfilling to the player and thematically appropriate for this action resolution outcome you've devised above?




I think a PC Cleric using his Divine Intervention ability to cross the 50 foot chasm would be fulfilling and appropriate.  I think athletics is not divine intervention, though, so just adding in wings and divine intervention to allow an impossible jump to succeed would not be fulfilling to me.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Fenris-77 said:


> I think you need to be nuanced when you're talking about second order causal relationships. The example of the Captain is on one end of that spectrum. The DM could have easily inserted a phrase like _Sir, I could not help but overhear..._ and everything is shiny. Even easier if the Captain was actually in the room. Those make sense and I don't think anyone's immersion is being kicked in the face there at all. However, once we approach the other end of the spectrum, where we are now talking about divine aid and other things that are more in the _deus ex machina_ camp, I think DMs need to be very careful. I also think that the notion that success can extend past what is circumscribed by the rules also needs to handled with the deftest of touches.
> 
> Part of this discussion centers on the idea of automatic failure. @Ovinomancer has correctly identified the sort of adjudication mechanic in question for D&D, that of GM decides, and I think he also makes an excellent point that the fiction should still be your core point of reference. There are really two examples in play here, and I think they are somewhat different. First, we have the impossible jump, and second we have the intractable NPC. The main difference there is that in the former case the rules themselves prescribe jumping distance, and not just a rule, but a very player facing rule, one tied to a core stat. The stakes of a PC action declaration that_ I am going to attempt to jump the 50' chasm_ thus has a built-in and pretty obvious failure state - i.e. that the rules say you can't. That is not to say that divine aid or somesuch couldn't be appropriate in some cases, but, simply put, the player is announcing that he is going to attempt a task that he _knows_ to be impossible, essentially throwing that in the DMs lap and daring him to allow failure. Perhaps he prays to his god, or does some deep knee needs to warm up, but that's window dressing for most characters and most fictional frames. Except in some very specific dramatic situations I don't think it's appropriate or necessary for the DM to adjudicate success there. This is very much in the shooting an arrow at the moon set of examples. The number of cases where the fiction will override the basic impossibility of the action are very few.
> 
> The example of the intractable NPC is very different I think, for a number of reasons. Let's set aside for the moment the conversational equivalent of the moon arrow, which includes things like asking the dragon to give you his horde for no reason, or asking an implacable and evil foe to start putting flowers in the barrels of guns. Before we set those examples aside, it's worth noting that they are already different from the chasm jump in one important respect - the _rules_ do not say the action is impossible, and there is thus no rules-mandated failure state. We have moved into the realm of ultimate power - DM fiat. For the most part, those extremely unlikely examples we are setting aside are not impossible due to the rules, but rather for reasons that might be branded common sense - Dragons do not generally give away their hordes. I would submit that this is still broadly similar to the chasm jump though, as most players should realize that its not going to happen on a simple ask, no matter how charming you are, and I don't think that's really an example of an intractable NPC either. That leaves us with cases of intractable character traits, the discussion of which requires a few more tools.
> 
> I think the notion of intractable character traits is really striking to the heart of social interaction in general, and how different styles of play, and different methods of NPC and encounter building start to become of paramount importance. First, we need to look at what an intractable character trait actually is, and what that should mean for adjudication social interaction. Lets say we have an NPC who has been given the trait _Devoted - will not betray his lord for any reason. _That seems pretty intractable, right? It really isn't though. In order to frame actions and responses we need to talk about motivation and objections. Could a character like that be lied to, be convinced that action A is protecting his lord when it really isn't? Of course. Could he possibly be persuaded that allowing the PCs past his station is the right thing to do because his lord's life is actually in danger? Of course. Could he be convinced to fatally poison his lord's wine, for any reason? No, he couldn't. So intractable only really applies up to the point where the NPC's motivation to accede to a request overcomes their natural reluctance to follow the rules, or to put it another way, it applies until the fictional frame is shifted enough that their intractable trait is no longer the primary objection. In addition to reframing to overcome objections, there is also the idea of leverage, which comes into play much more strongly in the case of neutral or hostile NPCs. The easy example there is that fear for one's life is leverage that can overcome a lot of seemingly intractable character traits, but also in the mix are fear of embarrassment, greed, threats to cherished possessions/people, the prospect of advancement, appeals to authority, and a bunch of other things.
> 
> Given the rather long list of methods the PCs might use to circumvent, modify, or otherwise overcome even the most intractable NPC, I don't think it makes a lot of sense for the DM to rule by fiat that the action is impossible. You could certainly start with a response that indexes a complete refusal by the NPC to comply, but that doesn't mean that a clever party might not be able to find away around that refusal. In most cases I think it's appropriate to leave at least _some_ room in the fiction for success.



Absolutely. That isn't the NPC behaving contrary to the trait, but rather the players working around it. You can go around the wall, but you can't simply walk through  it.

The trait remains unchanged. You can't directly convince the guard whose trait is loyalty to betray his lord. You can trick him into doing it, but the NPC is still acting in accordance with their trait, despite the the outcome is in opposition to it.

Similarly, in the case of the mad tyrant who brooks no insult, you can throw a clever insult at him that sounds like a compliment, and if you pull it off he may even thank you for it. That doesn't mean that he suddenly accepts being insulted, but rather that you slid an insult past him. If you follow up the subtle insult with a more overt one, he will be angered by it.


----------



## Fenris-77

Fanaelialae said:


> Absolutely. That isn't the NPC behaving contrary to the trait, but rather the players working around it. You can go around the wall, but you can't simply walk through  it.



Very apt. I don't think what I describe is common to all games though, which is part of where this discussion lies. Some DMs seems to treat 'intractable' traits like an auto-fail button, which is, in most cases IMO, probably uninspired DMing (to put it nicely). One of the places I tend to agree with @pemerton is in the pretty endless set of opportunities provided in the fiction to at least attempt to change most things, and in the importance of using the mechanics to adjudicate success more than simply enforcing an failure state by fiat.

Not that you necessarily do any of things of course, I'm using general examples.


----------



## Scott Christian

hawkeyefan said:


> To me, any scene that involves all characters in some way can be as long as it needs to be. For anything where a limited number of players are engaged, consideration must be given for those waiting to participate. Now, I would expect a reasonable level of patience on the part of anyone not presently involved, but I do think it's better to get back to them sooner rather than later. Even if it's just a simple check in like "Okay, Mike...while all this is going on, what is Mongo doing?" Such a prompt gives the player the chance to engage if they'd like, or to refrain if they're okay continuing to wait.
> 
> Long combats tend to be different from long social scenes....or at least the potential for significant difference is there. With combat, everyone is likely involved. There is of course the chance that they get removed from the action, but those are typically understood and accepted as part of the game. When someone drops to 0 HP, they're not out of the action simply because it's someone else's time to shine.



 Great points. I agree with everything, especially getting back to players with a prompt. And the part about combat, another excellent point. I agree wholeheartedly. 



hawkeyefan said:


> In any scene where one player has the focus....their PC is the one doing the talking or decision making for whatever reason....I always allow the other players to offer input and suggestions. If they're engaged enough to be following things and have ideas, I don't see the point in shutting that down. So that's my first step to trying to alleviate any potential boredom.
> 
> Additionally, if their characters are actually present in the scene, I do what I can to draw them into the scene. Whether it's a side conversation with another NPC, or the main NPC asks them direct questions. If their character isn't present in the scene, I may have something come up wherever they may be. Then I'll try and rotate focus a bit, alternating between scenes as needed.
> 
> I have one player who doesn't really like to talk scenes out. He's pretty much of the opinion that all such social scenes can be boiled down to a few points and a few rolls, and then you move on. I have other players who will happily speak in character for an entire session. So when I GM for these players, I have to balance that. I don't want to skip past parts that are fun for some players, but I don't want to let them indulge to the point that the other player is constantly listen to them talk.
> 
> As such, we don't tend to roleplay out mundane scenes like buying gear and the like.....we just narrate that quickly, deduct the necessary GP, and add the items to the sheet. The in character discussions that are roleplayed are limited to meaningful scenes, as you mention.




It seems we play the same way, especially with a specific group like that. As a player, (and I may be in the minority here), but I am actually entertained by scenes I am not in or scenes I am a secondary character. This of course is a shout out to those DM's. But I've found DM's that don't do a good job to be poor whether the scene revolves around me or anyone else. Just my two copper.


----------



## Scott Christian

Ovinomancer said:


> Unsurprisingly, I'm going to disagree with you. Not that you get what you want out of your method -- I believe you do and that's great. But that verisimilitude is capably of being defined as you have or that my method doesn't generate it in equal abundance.
> 
> First, about your definition. The world doesn't really exist without the PCs -- if there are no PCs, there's no game, and you've just been writing a story. So, if you have a world, it exists because of the PCs. Now, I get what you're driving at, and that's that there's fiction in the world that exists no matter what the PCs do, but, at that point, you're still writing fiction you're just telling it to your players and they have no opportunity to change it. If they do have an opportunity to change it in play, then we're back to it having been created as a challenge to the PCs, which would be because of the PCs. I don't think that you can have a coherent definition that is 'exists outside of the PCs.'
> 
> Semantics aside, though, I don't see how you writing down secret notes that you then tell the PC generates a feeling of realness or complexity that cannot be created in play by following PC actions. For instance, the example @Manbearcat presents has the Captain telling the Burgomaster a hard truth. If this was written in the GM's notes beforehand, it would be indistinguishable to the players form a situation where the GM invented it on the spot. And it involves things that aren't the PCs. There's nothing special about notes that increases a feeling of realness or depth in a game.
> 
> All of that said, though, I do fully understand there's a different feel to these two methods, at least to a GM who sees behind the curtain. There is certainly a different GM feel to an adventure that has good notes and plays out well compared to a game more discovered in play and completely unscripted. These feel very different to GM, so I understand your point that the notes method feels better to you (arguably, given how most enter the hobby, it's more comfortable and familiar than better, but that's a different discussion). However, and this is my point, the fiction created is hard to impossible to distinguish from each other. Verisimilitude is equally obtainable in each.



I think the writer's mantra: "show, don't tell" applies to this point. If you tell it, it is history. If you show it, it has the implication of being changed. At least that's the rule I try to follow while GM'ing.


----------



## Scott Christian

prabe said:


> My own approach is to prep no more than I need about, say, an NPC (the relevant example). I need to know enough to inform my decisions about the NPC's actions; I don't need more than that. Once the NPC has started behaving in ways the PCs can observe/learn about, I try to keep that behavior consistent.




I have done this too with a sandbox and hexcrawl approach. But as a player and GM, I find that having a thought out and well crafted story with a variety of milestone points that can change the ending to be more fluid for storytelling. Having things always open seems to create a disconnect for some players. Not saying they don't have fun, but it's like talking a class and then finding out the curriculum is different for everyone. The cohesiveness of the class seems to not be a strong. 

Do you do both ways? Or rather, did you used to do it one way then switch? Always curious as a GM so I can learn.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Fenris-77 said:


> Very apt. I don't think what I describe is common to all games though, which is part of where this discussion lies. Some DMs seems to treat 'intractable' traits like an auto-fail button, which is, in most cases IMO, probably uninspired DMing (to put it nicely). One of the places I tend to agree with @Permerton is in the pretty endless set of opportunities provided in the fiction to at least attempt to change most things, and in the importance of using the mechanics to adjudicate success more than simply enforcing an failure state by fiat.
> 
> Not that you necessarily do any of things of course, I'm using general examples.



That actually clarifies some of the arguments in this thread. I had actually been starting from the opposite footing (that most DMs recognize that intractable traits can be circumvented). Perhaps you're correct, I just haven't known that to be the case in my own experience. 

I certainly agree that if you can come up with a clever way to circumvent an intractable trait, then success becomes a possibility. Given the nature of the game, there may even be spells and other effects that allow you to overcome the trait. If the baron is dominated, then he'll certainly brook insults from you (at least until the spell wears off).

When I was speaking of auto-failure, I wasn't including all possibilities. Just the ones that try to overcome the trait directly. If you try to convince the baron to do what you want by insulting him, you'll fail. Of course, insulting someone is rarely a good way to get someone to do what you want. This NPC just happens to respond particularly poorly to that kind of 'motivation'.


----------



## Scott Christian

Ovinomancer said:


> Again, verisimilitude, as in a world that feels real, isn't served by following or not following your notes.  That's stuff only you as GM will ever know.  The players only ever get the world presented in play, and it's impossible to tell if a detail is from your notes or made up on the spot in play.
> 
> What's gained by sticking to notes is a feeling of constancy for the GM: the world is as you imagined it.  That's fine, nothing wrong with it, but you're confusing a rich, detailed, engaging world with this feeling that it's like you imagined it -- you're confusing your view of the world as a GM as the same as the player's view of the world.  I've been in tightly detailed worlds in games that didn't achieve verisimilitude for me as a player.  I don't think that verisimilitude is at all connected to how well you stick to your notes as a GM.




I think you are correct. But in my experience, a cohesiveness among the group over a shared long term goal (stop the plague, find a way to slay the dragon, build a pirate fleet, or whatever) is lost. I have played in many states, with a lot of different groups, and most had outstanding GM's (incredible and incredibly lucky on my part). The ones that create as they go and let players follow their whims vs the ones that have an end game and steps (choices on which steps, but steps nonetheless) are very different. The frustration felt by players in the former is always greater if they don't have an end-goal. They may have ten adventures to go on, but that doesn't change the fact that they really only want one that matters to their end game. Just my experience.


----------



## Fenris-77

There are parts of adventures that heavily feature social interaction where I essentially encourage my players to treat NPCs themselves like a mini-dungeon. Learn as much as you can about the who, why, and whatnot before hand- what do they want, what are they afraid of, do they have weak spots, etc etc. Going into an SI with some prior knowledge of likely avenues for overcoming objections and dodging intractable traits is solid gold for RPing - the characters feel like they have a *lot* of agency. Obviously this isn't always possible, but even then I like to use things like insight and/or simple observation top provide some of the same information. Figuring out how to overcome an obstacle is way more fun than guessing what that obstacle might be.


----------



## FrozenNorth

hawkeyefan said:


> So, do you think that a minor NPC is typically going to have:
> a) such a detailed background
> b) that also relates to potential actions in the present game
> c) that will effectively shut down a very possible action?



It seems a lot more likely than you suggest.  Maxperson’s example involved the Csptain of the guard, who is more likely to be a major NPC than a minor NPC.

If the players want to burn an orphanage, there is probably an in-game reason for it (heck, if there is an orphanage in the adventure, there is probably an in-game reason for it).  Stands to reason that the DM would have q pretty good idea about how most NPCs (both major and minor) feel about the orphanage.


----------



## Manbearcat

Don’t have time to catch up and/or respond, but just a note of clarification:

My post above was intended as possible action resolution outcomes for Epic Tier D&D PCs.


----------



## prabe

Scott Christian said:


> I have done this too with a sandbox and hexcrawl approach. But as a player and GM, I find that having a thought out and well crafted story with a variety of milestone points that can change the ending to be more fluid for storytelling. Having things always open seems to create a disconnect for some players. Not saying they don't have fun, but it's like talking a class and then finding out the curriculum is different for everyone. The cohesiveness of the class seems to not be a strong.
> 
> Do you do both ways? Or rather, did you used to do it one way then switch? Always curious as a GM so I can learn.




I try to run campaigns where the PCs have multiple goals they can pursue and they choose which to pursue and in what order. I never intentionally prep more than the session I'm about to run (so, my prep for this evening's game doesn't go too much further than I think they'll be able to get tonight). That doesn't mean I haven't thought about the goals they're pursuing (and the goals they're putting off), nor does it mean I don't have ideas about things that might arise between the PCs and their goals; I have. As I say often, I am fortunate to the point of blessed to have excellent players in both the campaigns I'm now running, one of whom is my wife, who takes copious notes and shares them with the table via Google Docs (Campaign One is 600 pages through 52 sessions; Campaign Two is 180 pages through 19 sessions); it's easy to keep things consistent with that much information.

I have in the past tried to run campaigns with overarching stories, and with roughly everything improvised. I find that the middle ground I've settled on works well for me, but your experiences may differ.


----------



## Lanefan

Scott Christian said:


> I think you are correct. But in my experience, a cohesiveness among the group over a shared long term goal (stop the plague, find a way to slay the dragon, build a pirate fleet, or whatever) is lost. I have played in many states, with a lot of different groups, and most had outstanding GM's (incredible and incredibly lucky on my part). The ones that create as they go and let players follow their whims vs the ones that have an end game and steps (choices on which steps, but steps nonetheless) are very different. The frustration felt by players in the former is always greater if they don't have an end-goal. They may have ten adventures to go on, but that doesn't change the fact that they really only want one that matters to their end game. Just my experience.



Interesting.

I'm almost the opposite, in that I prefer a campaign to be open-ended and NOT to have an obvious visible end-point until and unless we reach it.  Even when I'm roughly planning ahead as a DM and can see a possible end-point, there's no guarantee we'll ever get there (which is the state in my current campaign; I've a vague end point in mind but for all I know it'll never be reached).  Side quests, unrelated adventures, player-driven adventures, extended downtime activities - all of these quite nicely divert from any progress toward an end state, and that's fine with me. 

That said, defineable goals and end-points and even quasi-hard-APs can certainly be embedded within a larger campaign; but the end of the AP merely turns those characters loose to go do something else in the setting - join other parties, carry on together, retire, or whatever.

Come to think of it, of the last two quasi-AP's I've had in my campaign one was entirely a long side-quest (literally, as in three characters got Quest-ed to do something) and the other's relationship to the overall plot didn't become apparent until quite some time afterwards.


----------



## hawkeyefan

FrozenNorth said:


> It seems a lot more likely than you suggest.  Maxperson’s example involved the Csptain of the guard, who is more likely to be a major NPC than a minor NPC.
> 
> If the players want to burn an orphanage, there is probably an in-game reason for it (heck, if there is an orphanage in the adventure, there is probably an in-game reason for it).  Stands to reason that the DM would have q pretty good idea about how most NPCs (both major and minor) feel about the orphanage.




Yes, but this is my point. 

If there is an orphanage in play, there's likely a reason for that. The reason may very well call the PCs to action in some way.....apparently in this case, to burn it down. 

Placing a NPC in play for the PCs to interact with, but then flat out blocking one of the potential ways in which they'd interact with him....I'm not saying there can never be a reason for it, but generally speaking I don't know if they're going to be the most meaningful of interactions. You're actively removing one of the avenues available to the PCs.....which means you're favoring/pushing towards specific avenues. 

Which may be fine.....sometimes, you put a monster in their way just so they can fight him. Sometimes you put a guard in play so that they have to sneak past him. Nothing wrong with that if that's what you want.

But if it's not what you want, then you probably don't want to do that. So a NPC that the PCs have to speak with but whose traits make speaking to him pointless.....it's kind of a recipe for dissatisfaction, no?


----------



## FrozenNorth

hawkeyefan said:


> Which may be fine.....sometimes, you put a monster in their way just so they can fight him. Sometimes you put a guard in play so that they have to sneak past him. Nothing wrong with that if that's what you want.
> 
> But if it's not what you want, then you probably don't want to do that. So a NPC that the PCs have to speak with but whose traits make speaking to him pointless.....it's kind of a recipe for dissatisfaction, no?



I don’t understand why you would conclude that speaking to the Captain is pointless simply because he refuses to burn down the orphanage.

There could be a dozen reasons to speak to the Captain that are not arson-related, like there could be a dozen options for dealing with the orphanage that are not arson-related.

Why are you saying that a “hard no” on one of those 144 possibilities (ask the Captain to set fire to the orphanage) is railroading or bad encounter design?


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> If there is an orphanage in play, there's likely a reason for that. The reason may very well call the PCs to action in some way.....apparently in this case, to burn it down.



I disagree, in that a DM can (and IMO should) put all kinds of things 'in play' and leave it up to the players/PCs to sort out which might be relevant and which are either red herrings or window dressing.

Thus, if the PCs are seeking out an Assassins' guildhouse and their info-gathering puts it in Cheapside Way, on reaching Cheapside Way the DM is fully free to narrate something like:

"Cheapside Way is a fairly short street with only 5 or 6 things on each side, running east and downhill from the South Market toward the docks.  On the north side starting from your position there's a Butcher, a Leatherworker's shop (maybe? the sign's hard to read), a Curio shop, a building that's probably an orphanage, and a small Temple to [_deity_]. On the south side nearest you there's a small shop selling meat pies and such, then a Clothier, a Glassblower, a Carpenter's workspace and shop, an unmarked building that could be a private residence, and a knockabout pub called the Wit and Wisdom."

So now there's an orphanage in play.  Is it relevant?  It it window dressing?  Is it a red herring?  The DM knows where the guildhouse is (the Curio shop is a front for it, and they use the Wit and Wisdom as a meeting and contact point) but the players/PCs have to figure it out - quite possibly at some risk if the Assassins realize there's some people poking around who shouldn't be....


----------



## Ovinomancer

Lanefan said:


> I disagree, in that a DM can (and IMO should) put all kinds of things 'in play' and leave it up to the players/PCs to sort out which might be relevant and which are either red herrings or window dressing.
> 
> Thus, if the PCs are seeking out an Assassins' guildhouse and their info-gathering puts it in Cheapside Way, on reaching Cheapside Way the DM is fully free to narrate something like:
> 
> "Cheapside Way is a fairly short street with only 5 or 6 things on each side, running east and downhill from the South Market toward the docks.  On the north side starting from your position there's a Butcher, a Leatherworker's shop (maybe? the sign's hard to read), a Curio shop, a building that's probably an orphanage, and a small Temple to [_deity_]. On the south side nearest you there's a small shop selling meat pies and such, then a Clothier, a Glassblower, a Carpenter's workspace and shop, an unmarked building that could be a private residence, and a knockabout pub called the Wit and Wisdom."
> 
> So now there's an orphanage in play.  Is it relevant?  It it window dressing?  Is it a red herring?  The DM knows where the guildhouse is (the Curio shop is a front for it, and they use the Wit and Wisdom as a meeting and contact point) but the players/PCs have to figure it out - quite possibly at some risk if the Assassins realize there's some people poking around who shouldn't be....



Personally speaking only, but that example of play is absolutely not something I'd enjoy.  I'm tolerant of a wide range of play, but the oversupply of detail with intent to obfuscate and confuse just isn't something I want to spend my leisure time unravelling.  It's not rewarding to me as a player and when I abandoned the concept as a GM my games improved dramatically (pun intended).  I'd rather make the game about what happens when the PCs get to the assassin's hideout than a long description of random street addresses just to make the players sift through the dross for the treasure.

YMMV, I'm speaking only of my personal preference, and I'm actually glad such different-to-my-tastes styles are both out there and enjoyed.


----------



## Numidius

Nonetheless, if a pub is present in the scenario, start from there. Always.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Ovinomancer said:


> Personally speaking only, but that example of play is absolutely not something I'd enjoy.  I'm tolerant of a wide range of play, but the oversupply of detail with intent to obfuscate and confuse just isn't something I want to spend my leisure time unravelling.  It's not rewarding to me as a player and when I abandoned the concept as a GM my games improved dramatically (pun intended).  I'd rather make the game about what happens when the PCs get to the assassin's hideout than a long description of random street addresses just to make the players sift through the dross for the treasure.
> 
> YMMV, I'm speaking only of my personal preference, and I'm actually glad such different-to-my-tastes styles are both out there and enjoyed.



This seems to run counter to your claim yesterday that your style of game is virtually impossible to distinguish from a prepped game as far as verisimilitude goes. What you call dross, I see as a rich tapestry of detail intended to draw the player into the world, rather than to mislead them.

I'm fully willing to accept that your idea of verisimilitude might be different from mine. There's nothing wrong with that. Different people enjoy different styles of play. However, I'm more confident than ever that I'd be able to easily tell the difference.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Scott Christian said:


> I think you are correct. But in my experience, a cohesiveness among the group over a shared long term goal (stop the plague, find a way to slay the dragon, build a pirate fleet, or whatever) is lost. I have played in many states, with a lot of different groups, and most had outstanding GM's (incredible and incredibly lucky on my part). The ones that create as they go and let players follow their whims vs the ones that have an end game and steps (choices on which steps, but steps nonetheless) are very different. The frustration felt by players in the former is always greater if they don't have an end-goal. They may have ten adventures to go on, but that doesn't change the fact that they really only want one that matters to their end game. Just my experience.



I'm not convinced the correlation is as tight as you seem to claim.  I'm running a 5e game where all of the PCs have their own agenda, but they have great cohesion -- acting to help each other's agendas and/or following team agendas.  Even in games that are fully story-now, they don't have to fracture this much.  Blades in the Dark and Dungeon World are fantastic examples of team games that don't feature GM plotting.

Can you lose cohesion?  Sure.  Is it perhaps easier to do so in a game where the GM caters to individual goals and doesn't push or help develop team goals?  Sure.  Is it an outcome of allowing for more player input into the fiction?  No, I don't think so.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fanaelialae said:


> This seems to run counter to your claim yesterday that your style of game is virtually impossible to distinguish from a prepped game as far as verisimilitude goes. What you call dross, I see as a rich tapestry of detail intended to draw the player into the world, rather than to mislead them.
> 
> I'm fully willing to accept that your idea of verisimilitude might be different from mine. There's nothing wrong with that. Different people enjoy different styles of play. However, I'm more confident than ever that I'd be able to easily tell the difference.



If you claim that adding irrelevant details in an effort to confuse and frustrate player goals is verisilimitude, then our fundamental difference is one of definition.

My details are rich and full but aren't presented as red herrings.  I do not believe that red herrings add verisimilitude in an RPG because they're placed intentionally by the GM to confuse and the real world does not do this.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrozenNorth said:


> I don’t understand why you would conclude that speaking to the Captain is pointless simply because he refuses to burn down the orphanage.
> 
> There could be a dozen reasons to speak to the Captain that are not arson-related, like there could be a dozen options for dealing with the orphanage that are not arson-related.
> 
> Why are you saying that a “hard no” on one of those 144 possibilities (ask the Captain to set fire to the orphanage) is railroading or bad encounter design?



The discussion is premised on this detail being present because it does matter to play -- ie, the presentation of the Captain's feelings about orphanages was presented in a case where that detail mattered to play.  It's fairly obvious that if orphanages don't come up in play, this detail of the Captain will also not come up in play.  That's uninteresting to discuss.  The discussion, then, is about how this works when it does matter to play -- when this detail is important.

I think this is a poor detail to follow for this discussion because it is contrived and was presented more as a counter to a premise rather than a fully coherent play example on it's own, so it's pretty flawed for the purposes of discussion.  However, it was followed and the core assumption of following it is that it has impacted play.  We're past the point where it might not come up -- it has come up, so how does that work.

Also, if it doesn't come up, then it's not a great example of prep that helps the GM play an NPC more fully because it's an irrelevant detail.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Ovinomancer said:


> If you claim that adding irrelevant details in an effort to confuse and frustrate player goals is verisilimitude, then our fundamental difference is one of definition.
> 
> My details are rich and full but aren't presented as red herrings.  I do not believe that red herrings add verisimilitude in an RPG because they're placed intentionally by the GM to confuse and the real world does not do this.



I fundamentally disagree that their intent is to confuse. They are there to add a sense of depth to the world. 

Additionally, there's no reason that they need to be red herrings at all. The shops carry goods, offering an opportunity to resupply. The proprietors might also have need of, or information for, a group of adventurers. They're only red herrings if you choose not to put in the most minimal effort (which can include coming up with details only improvisationally, as needed, when the players choose to engage with a particular element).


----------



## Fenris-77

Fanaelialae said:


> I fundamentally disagree that their intent is to confuse. They are there to add a sense of depth to the world.



I think you're both right. Rich detail can indeed add depth to the game world, and it should be a goal of any DM. However, the oversupply of detail, and especially irrelevant detail, is indeed confusing for players and indeed quite bad for the fiction. When you drop too much info, especially if it's all the same type (most DMs default to what you see, rather than hear or smell) then the problem arises for the players of what parts they are supposed to be paying attention to. Also, because the players only hear the description, and aren't actually engaging all their senses, there is an upper limit to how much detail they can process at once.

I tend to aim for occasional points of rich detail connected together by more sketched out detail. The ability of the human brain to achieve closure from a finite set of data is really quite astonishing, and I try to use that whenever possible.


----------



## Manbearcat

hawkeyefan said:


> Yes, but this is my point.
> 
> If there is an orphanage in play, there's likely a reason for that. The reason may very well call the PCs to action in some way.....apparently in this case, to burn it down.
> 
> Placing a NPC in play for the PCs to interact with, but then flat out blocking one of the potential ways in which they'd interact with him....I'm not saying there can never be a reason for it, but generally speaking I don't know if they're going to be the most meaningful of interactions. You're actively removing one of the avenues available to the PCs.....which means you're favoring/pushing towards specific avenues.
> 
> Which may be fine.....sometimes, you put a monster in their way just so they can fight him. Sometimes you put a guard in play so that they have to sneak past him. Nothing wrong with that if that's what you want.
> 
> But if it's not what you want, then you probably don't want to do that. So a NPC that the PCs have to speak with but whose traits make speaking to him pointless.....it's kind of a recipe for dissatisfaction, no?




Again, I haven't caught up with the thread nor have I come close to reading every reply with a critical eye.  I'm basically skimming right now as I have a moment.

Just going to use this post to springboard some analysis.  We've talked about Force a lot in the past (which is a specific instance of play), but I'm going to say something about the broad issue of Railroading.

This is how I look at the issue:

"Railroading is a phenomenon that occurs in proportion to a GM (or an adventure) encoding a winnowing of player decision-points."

As such, a session (or a campaign that features such sessions) that has encoded in its "DNA" a surplus of meaningful gamestate interactions whereby decision-points and attendant outcomes are narrow is "more railroady" than one where where breadth is encoded (and therefore significant branching if you instantiated the starting conditions of the session, say, 100 times). 

Force, is a singular instance of this encoding and the encoding is complete (the encoding can occur preemptively by the GM or in the spur of the moment when play trajectory is wrested from the GM's designs); meaning a singular outcome imposed by the GM.


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> Personally speaking only, but that example of play is absolutely not something I'd enjoy.  I'm tolerant of a wide range of play, but the oversupply of detail with intent to obfuscate and confuse just isn't something I want to spend my leisure time unravelling.  It's not rewarding to me as a player and when I abandoned the concept as a GM my games improved dramatically (pun intended).  I'd rather make the game about what happens when the PCs get to the assassin's hideout than a long description of random street addresses just to make the players sift through the dross for the treasure.



What you call "sifting through the dross" I call exploration and investigation.

Part of the mystery (and thus, challenge) lies in simply finding the guild in the first place - why would anyone want to skip that?


> My details are rich and full but aren't presented as red herrings.  I do not believe that red herrings add verisimilitude in an RPG because they're placed intentionally by the GM to confuse and the real world does not do this.



The real world does this all the time!

Leave your GPS and phone and other electronic geegaws at home, then go to a strange city and try to find something that doesn't go out of its way to make itself obvious - for example, the local Masons' lodge.

Guaranteed that unless you're crazy lucky you'll be chasing red herrings from breakfast to Tuesday, and might never find it.

Now make it fictional, and throw in that those Masons don't want to be disturbed and have the means to (and at least by reputation are more than willing to) quietly, violently, and permanently back this up.

Finding that place ain't no slam dunk, and I want specific details as to how you're going about it (i.e. no let's-just-make-it-one-big-skill-challenge copouts). In order for you to give those details, I-as-DM an obliged to provide you with enough detail and description of the setting and surroundings to make those detailed actions worthwhile; hence an in-depth narration of the street you think the guild is on.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> Just going to use this post to springboard some analysis.  We've talked about Force a lot in the past (which is a specific instance of play), but I'm going to say something about the broad issue of Railroading.
> 
> This is how I look at the issue:
> 
> "Railroading is a phenomenon that occurs in proportion to a GM (or an adventure) encoding a winnowing of player decision-points."
> 
> As such, a session (or a campaign that features such sessions) that has encoded in its "DNA" a surplus of meaningful gamestate interactions whereby decision-points and attendant outcomes are narrow is "more railroady" than one where where breadth is encoded (and therefore significant branching if you instantiated the starting conditions of the session, say, 100 times).
> 
> Force, is a singular instance of this encoding and the encoding is complete (the encoding can occur preemptively by the GM or in the spur of the moment when play trajectory is wrested from the GM's designs); meaning a singular outcome imposed by the GM.



Sorry, old chap, but somethng here isn't making sense...maybe due to my poor parsing of your words?

Are you trying to suggest that games with more decision points are more railroady than those with less?  If yes, please explain your logic.  If no, please explain what you're trying to say otherwise.


----------



## hawkeyefan

FrozenNorth said:


> It seems a lot more likely than you suggest.  Maxperson’s example involved the Csptain of the guard, who is more likely to be a major NPC than a minor NPC.
> 
> If the players want to burn an orphanage, there is probably an in-game reason for it (heck, if there is an orphanage in the adventure, there is probably an in-game reason for it).  Stands to reason that the DM would have q pretty good idea about how most NPCs (both major and minor) feel about the orphanage.




Okay, I'm going to approach this from another angle.

Who has determined that there is an orphanage of some importance? The DM.

Who has determined there's a NPC who has very strong feelings about the orphanage? The DM.

Who has placed this NPC in the path of the PCs? The DM.

Now......if the DM is fine with how things play out as a result of whatever interaction the PCs have with this orphanage-loving NPC, then I suppose the above facts are not a problem. But if it leads to a dissatisfying encounter or interaction, then I think the DM has to be held at least partly accountable, right? 

So to lend the example a little more weight....because the whole orphanage burning thing is pretty absurd and it's hard to even use it as an example......let's say that the PCs have reason to believe that the headmaster (?) at the orphanage is in fact a cultist, and he's replaced all the orphans with shapechanging imps from the lower planes. This is something the DM has in his notes. The PCs have become aware of this plot, and are devoted to stopping it. The captain of the guard will likely frown on the PCs trying to burn down the orphanage.....we don't even need to add details like "oh he was an orphan himself, so he's sympathetic" because almost no one wants to see an orphanage burn down.

The PCs are concerned they can't foil the cultist's plan.....so they decide to try and convince the captain of the truth and to ask for his help.

Now we have a situation that has come from the DM's notes and has played out largely as hoped/expected. But will the captain be convinced? This seems to be the dynamic point.....what will happen? 

DM SAYS NO!

Not allowing the PCs to convince the captain no matter what would be a bad decision in this case. What if the PCs show him an orphan and they then dispel its shapechanging ability, revealing its true form as an imp. Still not believing? What if we show him the cultist's journal, swiped from his nightstand when the party rogue scouted the place out....the journal clearly details the cultist's plan. No? Still not convinced? Man you love orphanages even to a fault.

You're shooting down their plan before they even have a chance to see if it will work. There are several points where the DM could make a different choice that totally shifts how this may play out.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> I disagree, in that a DM can (and IMO should) put all kinds of things 'in play' and leave it up to the players/PCs to sort out which might be relevant and which are either red herrings or window dressing.
> 
> Thus, if the PCs are seeking out an Assassins' guildhouse and their info-gathering puts it in Cheapside Way, on reaching Cheapside Way the DM is fully free to narrate something like:
> 
> "Cheapside Way is a fairly short street with only 5 or 6 things on each side, running east and downhill from the South Market toward the docks.  On the north side starting from your position there's a Butcher, a Leatherworker's shop (maybe? the sign's hard to read), a Curio shop, a building that's probably an orphanage, and a small Temple to [_deity_]. On the south side nearest you there's a small shop selling meat pies and such, then a Clothier, a Glassblower, a Carpenter's workspace and shop, an unmarked building that could be a private residence, and a knockabout pub called the Wit and Wisdom."
> 
> So now there's an orphanage in play.  Is it relevant?  It it window dressing?  Is it a red herring?  The DM knows where the guildhouse is (the Curio shop is a front for it, and they use the Wit and Wisdom as a meeting and contact point) but the players/PCs have to figure it out - quite possibly at some risk if the Assassins realize there's some people poking around who shouldn't be....




I mean.....why in your example would the PCs want to burn down the orphanage? 

The initial orphanage example was an extreme one to begin with....but if we accept it at all, then we have to accept that the orphanage is already relevant in some way because the PCs want to burn it down, and such a thing is usually frowned upon. This is what could potentially cause conflict.....the need to do something when that something is not acceptable. 

So while I have no problem with a GM including details which may or may not be relevant, and leaving it up to the PCs to learn which are which......I don't think that's really at all what I was talking about.


----------



## Lanefan

Fanaelialae said:


> I fundamentally disagree that their intent is to confuse. They are there to add a sense of depth to the world.
> 
> Additionally, there's no reason that they need to be red herrings at all.



Actually, in my off-the-cuff example above, a couple of those places are intentionally described as red herrings.

The one 'private residence' on the street, for example: that'd be where I'd look first for a hidden guild.  But it ain't there... 

The hard-to-read sign on the Leatherworker's place could be interpreted as a hint by some players/PCs, but it ain't there either... 

And the pub's at the far end of the street, so if they want to start there (which, I agree with @Numidius , is always a good place to start!) they have to either walk down the street and maybe be 'made' by the Assassins, or think to go around and approach from a different direction.



> The shops carry goods, offering an opportunity to resupply. The proprietors might also have need of, or information for, a group of adventurers. They're only red herrings if you choose not to put in the most minimal effort (which can include coming up with details only improvisationally, as needed, when the players choose to engage with a particular element).



Yeah, were this me I'd have the Curio shop and the pub done up in some detail as those are ultimately the key places, and maybe one-liners at most on each of the others e.g.

*Butcher* - grumpy woman who really knows her trade, no time for any talk other than about meat. Knows nothing.
*Leatherworker* - old couple close to retirement and mostly happy, shop a mess.  Suspicious of orphanage and of 'private residence' down street.
*Curio shop* - see 'Guildhouse', page [y].
*Orphanage* - run by temple nextdoor, adults know nothing but the kids know everything, excellent info source esp. if given food!
*Temple* - caters mostly to sailors thus lots of visitors, no useful info here but holy water, basic cures etc. available at a price. Highest Cleric is 4th level.
*Pie shop* - happy couple of newlyweds, get meat from butcher across street, new shop, kids from orphanage keep stealing their pies. Know nothing.
*Clothier *- in pay of Assassins, also makes their disguises, too many questions here will alert guild within d3 hours. Master tailor, no class skills.
*Glassblower* - gabby man who won't stop talking but has no useful info.  Complains constantly about orphans breaking things in his shop.
*Carpenter* - tough no-nonsense woman, ex-sailor, Fighter-3, suspects more goes on at pub than meets the eye but doesn't want to rock the boat. Might aid or hide PCs if asked - and if paid.
*Residence* - abandoned last winter when owner died, Assassins quietly bought it and now leave it in current state as a decoy.
*Wit and Wisdom pub* - see 'Pub', page [x].

For myself only those notes would be in even briefer form; the above would be what I'd put were I writing it out for someone else to run.

And these write-ups add yet another potential layer of rainbow-hued herrings; but the general idea is that if all else fails eventually the PCs find their way to the orphanage and once there think to talk to the kids rather than the adults.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> I mean.....why in your example would the PCs want to burn down the orphanage?



I've no idea.  I just made sure I threw one in there because someone asked why an orphanage might be narrated without necessarily being relevant.

That said, knowing my lot there's a 50-50 chance they'd just end up burning down the whole damn street, and maybe not even on purpose!


----------



## Manbearcat

Lanefan said:


> Sorry, old chap, but somethng here isn't making sense...maybe due to my poor parsing of your words?
> 
> Are you trying to suggest that games with more decision points are more railroady than those with less?  If yes, please explain your logic.  If no, please explain what you're trying to say otherwise.




Not number of decision-points.

Set of possible solutions to any given decision-point being winnowed by the GM toward 2 or, especially, 1.

The more a game features this paradigm, “the more railroady it will become.”

There are other things that make a game more or less railroady as well (such as negating/overturning a PC victory earned via the GM’s unlateral access to backstory, offscreen, setting, or unique role in action resolution mechanics mediation). However, those aren’t related to the question of a GM encoding predetermined solutions and therefore outcomes.


----------



## pemerton

Imaculata said:


> But this particular encounter is from Curse of Strahd, correct? I haven't played Curse of Strahd, but as I understand it it is a setting with a very different tone compared to normal D&D. The setting is more dark and dangerous, or so I've heard.
> 
> I wonder if the players were properly made aware what sort of adventure they were playing.



The OP talks about this early in the the thread.

My understanding of Ravenloft is that it is Renaissance-meets-Gothic-horror. I don't see how capitulation to mad tyrants is an essential part of that genre. Nor that uncowable tyrants are an essential part of it. What happened to the bit where the guards and crowd turn on the tyrant and set fire to his mansion with him in it?


----------



## Fanaelialae

hawkeyefan said:


> Okay, I'm going to approach this from another angle.
> 
> Who has determined that there is an orphanage of some importance? The DM.
> 
> Who has determined there's a NPC who has very strong feelings about the orphanage? The DM.
> 
> Who has placed this NPC in the path of the PCs? The DM.
> 
> Now......if the DM is fine with how things play out as a result of whatever interaction the PCs have with this orphanage-loving NPC, then I suppose the above facts are not a problem. But if it leads to a dissatisfying encounter or interaction, then I think the DM has to be held at least partly accountable, right?
> 
> So to lend the example a little more weight....because the whole orphanage burning thing is pretty absurd and it's hard to even use it as an example......let's say that the PCs have reason to believe that the headmaster (?) at the orphanage is in fact a cultist, and he's replaced all the orphans with shapechanging imps from the lower planes. This is something the DM has in his notes. The PCs have become aware of this plot, and are devoted to stopping it. The captain of the guard will likely frown on the PCs trying to burn down the orphanage.....we don't even need to add details like "oh he was an orphan himself, so he's sympathetic" because almost no one wants to see an orphanage burn down.
> 
> The PCs are concerned they can't foil the cultist's plan.....so they decide to try and convince the captain of the truth and to ask for his help.
> 
> Now we have a situation that has come from the DM's notes and has played out largely as hoped/expected. But will the captain be convinced? This seems to be the dynamic point.....what will happen?
> 
> DM SAYS NO!
> 
> Not allowing the PCs to convince the captain no matter what would be a bad decision in this case. What if the PCs show him an orphan and they then dispel its shapechanging ability, revealing its true form as an imp. Still not believing? What if we show him the cultist's journal, swiped from his nightstand when the party rogue scouted the place out....the journal clearly details the cultist's plan. No? Still not convinced? Man you love orphanages even to a fault.
> 
> You're shooting down their plan before they even have a chance to see if it will work. There are several points where the DM could make a different choice that totally shifts how this may play out.



The whole "will not burn down the orphanage" isn't a good trait. A better trait might be "the captain recently lost his child and refuses to allow any child come to harm".

The captain might not immediately believe the PCs. A group of outsiders claiming that the orphanage is full of imps is kind of a hard sell. However, maybe they've got a preexisting relationship with the captain, or they are convincing enough to persuade him of the possibility. 

However,  he still wants proof. After all, can they really be certain that all of the children are imps? 

He wants to deal with the cult and the imps, but he NEEDS to be certain that no children will be harmed. If the PCs can convincingly prove that there are no children in the orphanage, then he might sanction burning it down (if that's really warranted). Otherwise, he'll want to come up with a plan of action that protects any children who might be present (which might involve a riskier action).

Technically, the PCs don't even have to actually prove that no children are present in order to burn down the orphanage. They just need to convince the captain that they've proven it beyond a doubt. Maybe the wizard performs some mumbo jumbo and tells the captain (persuasively) that he's divined that everyone inside the building is a demon. 

He won't harm children, but if the PCs have a way to take down the orphanage without harming children, then he can certainly be convinced to help. Given that the demons likely present a threat to the children in town, a check might not even be required, since this is directly in line with his beliefs.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fanaelialae said:


> I fundamentally disagree that their intent is to confuse. They are there to add a sense of depth to the world.



"Red herrings" was explicitly called out as an intended result.  Did we read the same post?


> Additionally, there's no reason that they need to be red herrings at all. The shops carry goods, offering an opportunity to resupply. The proprietors might also have need of, or information for, a group of adventurers. They're only red herrings if you choose not to put in the most minimal effort (which can include coming up with details only improvisationally, as needed, when the players choose to engage with a particular element).



Well, yes, if they're not red herrings then we're okay.  The point of that post wasn't to provide a new place to shop for interesting things or quest-giving proprietors.  If you're changing the example we're both working from so that your conclusion fits and mine doesn't, that's moving the goalposts.  The example given was explicitly about confusing the situation with red herrings and extra information so as to force the players to weed through it to find their goal.  It was even explicitly said that if they do this weeding in a noticeable way the assassins would be prepared.  There's no way for the players to make meaningful action resolutions at the start of the presented scenario because there's no information provided to leverage -- anything they try will be a guess first, at which point the GM will (especially given the later post of possible details) increase the level of chaff with fully details NPCs that have no reason to be present other than to be a red herring and drive the fiction towards a point the GM can use to justify having the assassins alerted.  This is an example of using scene setting as GM Force -- Force being using GM authority to drive to a pre-determined or desired outcome regardless of player inputs.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fanaelialae said:


> The whole "will not burn down the orphanage" isn't a good trait. A better trait might be "the captain recently lost his child and refuses to allow any child come to harm".
> 
> The captain might not immediately believe the PCs. A group of outsiders claiming that the orphanage is full of imps is kind of a hard sell. However, maybe they've got a preexisting relationship with the captain, or they are convincing enough to persuade him of the possibility.
> 
> However,  he still wants proof. After all, can they really be certain that all of the children are imps?
> 
> He wants to deal with the cult and the imps, but he NEEDS to be certain that no children will be harmed. If the PCs can convincingly prove that there are no children in the orphanage, then he might sanction burning it down (if that's really warranted). Otherwise, he'll want to come up with a plan of action that protects any children who might be present (which might involve a riskier action).
> 
> Technically, the PCs don't even have to actually prove that no children are present in order to burn down the orphanage. They just need to convince the captain that they've proven it beyond a doubt. Maybe the wizard performs some mumbo jumbo and tells the captain (persuasively) that he's divined that everyone inside the building is a demon.
> 
> He won't harm children, but if the PCs have a way to take down the orphanage without harming children, then he can certainly be convinced to help. Given that the demons likely present a threat to the children in town, a check might not even be required, since this is directly in line with his beliefs.



Yes, in a different example, things would be different.  What would THIS example result in?

That said, your example is definitely a much more reasonable example of play and a better example of a strong NPC motivation that can be overcome or circumvented through play.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> So to lend the example a little more weight....because the whole orphanage burning thing is pretty absurd and it's hard to even use it as an example......let's say that the PCs have reason to believe that the headmaster (?) at the orphanage is in fact a cultist, and he's replaced all the orphans with shapechanging imps from the lower planes. This is something the DM has in his notes. The PCs have become aware of this plot, and are devoted to stopping it. The captain of the guard will likely frown on the PCs trying to burn down the orphanage.....*we don't even need to add details like "oh he was an orphan himself, so he's sympathetic" because almost no one wants to see an orphanage burn down*.




I did need to add that detail.  @Ovinomancer suggested that a successful roll would be retroactively justified, so without that detail, a success to try and get him to burn down the orphanage would result in the Captain wanting the kids to die for some reason which he would come up with.  With it, the "success" won't be successful.



> The PCs are concerned they can't foil the cultist's plan.....so they decide to try and convince the captain of the truth and to ask for his help.
> 
> Now we have a situation that has come from the DM's notes and has played out largely as hoped/expected. But will the captain be convinced? This seems to be the dynamic point.....what will happen?
> 
> DM SAYS NO!




Under this new scenario, if the PCs have evidence, I would give them a roll to convince the Captain, or if the evidence is really strong, not even require a roll.  Altering the scenario alters the point that I was trying to make.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> The OP talks about this early in the the thread.
> 
> My understanding of Ravenloft is that it is Renaissance-meets-Gothic-horror. I don't see how capitulation to mad tyrants is an essential part of that genre. Nor that uncowable tyrants are an essential part of it. What happened to the bit where the guards and crowd turn on the tyrant and set fire to his mansion with him in it?



The Domain Lords are given a lot of power by the plane and many rule with an iron fist.  Going against one of the Lord's cronies is a good way to end up dead or worse.  Fear and horror are prevalent.  If you plan on playing a group that doesn't capitulate to the oppressive rulers, you are planning on a very short campaign.


----------



## Campbell

As far I can tell @Ovinomancer is not suggesting that the successful roll would override established fiction. He was suggesting that a GM might establish additional fictional details that correspond with the successful roll.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> I did need to add that detail.  @Ovinomancer suggested that a successful roll would be retroactively justified, so without that detail, a success to try and get him to burn down the orphanage would result in the Captain wanting the kids to die for some reason which he would come up with.  With it, the "success" won't be successful.
> 
> 
> 
> Under this new scenario, if the PCs have evidence, I would give them a roll to convince the Captain, or if the evidence is really strong, not even require a roll.  Altering the scenario alters the point that I was trying to make.



Please stop attributing things to me I have not said.  At no point did I ever opine that things are retroactively justified, nor did I ever even comment on people wanting kids to die in any context.  Stop putting words in my mouth, especially vile ones.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Campbell said:


> As far I can tell @Ovinomancer is not suggesting that the successful roll would override established fiction. He was suggesting that a GM might establish additional fictional details that correspond with the successful roll.



I appreciate the defense, and you're absolutely correct, but I'd prefer to not have others engage in this slander on my behalf, I'd just prefer it stop.  Discussing it further will just create more statements about what I think by people that are not me.


----------



## Maxperson

Campbell said:


> As far I can tell @Ovinomancer is not suggesting that the successful roll would override established fiction. He was suggesting that a GM might establish additional fictional details that correspond with the successful roll.



I wasn't talking about established fiction.  I'm talking about the prep that goes into an NPC.  If I know he was an orphan and has a soft spot for that orphanage and its children, which is something the PCs can find out, then they are not going to be able to convince him to burn it down just by a roll.  They would need something like hard proof that the kids were really imps or dopplegangers or something.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Please stop attributing things to me I have not said.  At no point did I ever opine that things are retroactively justified, nor did I ever even comment on people wanting kids to die in any context.  Stop putting words in my mouth, especially vile ones.



It's right here dude.

"Of course the Captain isn't going to flip just because the players ask (although, there's no example of play given in this thread except yours where this is an ask, so you've invented the problem you're solving). *The Captain flips because a player succeeded at a check *and that fiction makes sense to the GM in the moment.* Why does the Captain flip? PC success. I don't need to have determined beforehand all the possibly ways the Captain might be susceptible to flipping. Why? Because he just flipped (it's in the fiction), so there must be a reason, which I can plausibly invent if necessary.* It could be anything your conjecture above, or something else entirely. What it isn't is important when deciding if the Captain flips to begin with. "

That's you flat out saying that if the roll is successful(he flipped), you can plausibly invent the reason he flipped.  You are retroactively justifying the roll.

You are correct that it wasn't about the non-existent, pretend kids dying, though.  I misremembered that part of it.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Ovinomancer said:


> "Red herrings" was explicitly called out as an intended result.  Did we read the same post?
> 
> Well, yes, if they're not red herrings then we're okay.  The point of that post wasn't to provide a new place to shop for interesting things or quest-giving proprietors.  If you're changing the example we're both working from so that your conclusion fits and mine doesn't, that's moving the goalposts.  The example given was explicitly about confusing the situation with red herrings and extra information so as to force the players to weed through it to find their goal.  It was even explicitly said that if they do this weeding in a noticeable way the assassins would be prepared.  There's no way for the players to make meaningful action resolutions at the start of the presented scenario because there's no information provided to leverage -- anything they try will be a guess first, at which point the GM will (especially given the later post of possible details) increase the level of chaff with fully details NPCs that have no reason to be present other than to be a red herring and drive the fiction towards a point the GM can use to justify having the assassins alerted.  This is an example of using scene setting as GM Force -- Force being using GM authority to drive to a pre-determined or desired outcome regardless of player inputs.



I wasn't moving goalposts, I simply didn't read carefully enough.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Maxperson said:


> It's right here dude.
> 
> "Of course the Captain isn't going to flip just because the players ask (although, there's no example of play given in this thread except yours where this is an ask, so you've invented the problem you're solving). *The Captain flips because a player succeeded at a check *and that fiction makes sense to the GM in the moment.* Why does the Captain flip? PC success. I don't need to have determined beforehand all the possibly ways the Captain might be susceptible to flipping. Why? Because he just flipped (it's in the fiction), so there must be a reason, which I can plausibly invent if necessary.* It could be anything your conjecture above, or something else entirely. What it isn't is important when deciding if the Captain flips to begin with. "
> 
> That's you flat out saying that if the roll is successful(he flipped), you can plausibly invent the reason he flipped.  You are retroactively justifying the roll.
> 
> You are correct that it wasn't about the non-existent, pretend kids dying, though.  I misremembered that part of it.



Sorry, but you don't get to blatantly misrepresent my words and then demand I defend against your accusations.  You completely squandered any chance I'll be amenable to discuss this with you.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fanaelialae said:


> I wasn't moving goalposts, I simply didn't read carefully enough.



Fair enough.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Sorry, but you don't get to blatantly misrepresent my words and then demand I defend against your accusations.  You completely squandered any chance I'll be amenable to discuss this with you.



Way to dodge the proof that you said you can retroactively justify rolls.  At least @Campbell and others get to see I was correct about that portion.  That's what is important.


----------



## Fenris-77

I don't see the case for retroactive justification anywhere there. Weaving a success into the fiction properly and well isn't that at all, and that's all that was ever on the table, as @Campbell actually pointed out above. Anyway...


----------



## FrogReaver

Campbell said:


> As far I can tell @Ovinomancer is not suggesting that the successful roll would override established fiction. He was suggesting that a GM might establish additional fictional details that correspond with the successful roll.




Sure but I don't think it's difficult to see how those words translated through a 5e framework could easily lead to that other conclusion.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> I don't see the case for retroactive justification anywhere there. Weaving a success into the fiction properly and well isn't that at all, and that's all that was ever on the table, as @Campbell actually pointed out above. Anyway...



Whatever the reason for the success, that reason will now have been present from the first time the PCs met the Captain and before.  It's retroactive back to whenever the reason would have started all the way up to when the success happens.


----------



## FrogReaver

Maxperson said:


> Whatever the reason for the success, that reason will now have been present from the first time the PCs met the Captain and before.  It's retroactive back to whenever the reason would have started all the way up to when the success happens.




If that's what you mean by retroactive justification then I'm all for it and I think most here are.


----------



## Maxperson

FrogReaver said:


> If that's what you mean by retroactive justification then I'm all for it and I think most here are.



It can lead to issues.  I've seen it.  Due to time constraints I have to improv a lot when I DM.  When you come up with a reason that suddenly dates back to when the PCs first met the NPC and before, it can create a situation where if you had known that reason the first time the PCs encountered that NPC, it would have colored how you portrayed that NPC and how the PCs would have interacted with it.

It's not enough to simply come up with a reason for the success.  You have to come up with one that won't have changed anything that came before it, which can be hard in some situations.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm going to reiterate that a declared action must be rooted in the fiction and genre appropriate.




You've said this a few times so let's explore what it actually means.

If I am saying my characters does X how is that action not rooted in the fiction?  I'm also not quite sure what a non-genre appropriate PC action looks like.  Now I think you mean something more specific or nuanced by that statement but I can't tell what it is.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> You've said this a few times so let's explore what it actually means.
> 
> If I am saying my characters does X how is that action not rooted in the fiction?  I'm also not quite sure what a non-genre appropriate PC action looks like.  Now I think you mean something more specific or nuanced by that statement but I can't tell what it is.



Without knowing what the established fiction in your example or what action X is, I can't blanket answer your question.  This isn't being coy -- what's grounded in the fiction for a given action is directly related to what's currently going on in the scene and what's already been established.

For instance, if it's been established in the fiction that Bob the NPC is blind, and a PC declares they show Bob a picture, then the outcome is that Bob can't see the picture.  No roll is available for that action for which any outcome is possible -- showing a blind man a picture cannot make the blind man see the picture.  However, if the PC leverages some means that fits the fiction to cure the blindness so they can show the picture, presumably using magic or medicine, then that action is grounded in the fiction in that it acknowledges the blind NPC as part of it's declaration.

I'm going to carry this last example into genre appropriateness.  If we're playing a D&D game, then the action to cure Bob with magic is genre appropriate.  An action to cure Bob with medicine is not (it's not in the genre understanding of non-magical medicine to be able to cure blindness).  However, if we're playing a sci-fi game, then magic is not genre appropriate, but medicine may be (depending on tech levels and whatnot).  If the sci-fi setting includes magic via 'sciency' powers, well, then, magic is back on the table as genre appropriate, couched in the proper terminology (psionics, nanites, whatever).  

These aren't things that I would consider terribly difficult to grasp.   They're not an attempt to carve out anything special.  Grounded in the fiction simply means honors established fiction.  Genre appropriate simply means that the action makes sense in the genre of game you're playing.  These aren't high bars for most players, who are going to do this normally without prompting.  I keep bringing them up in these discussions to forestall people from outlandish examples they think match the adjudication methods I'm discussing.


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> You've said this a few times so let's explore what it actually means.
> 
> If I am saying my characters does X how is that action not rooted in the fiction?  I'm also not quite sure what a non-genre appropriate PC action looks like.  Now I think you mean something more specific or nuanced by that statement but I can't tell what it is.




A possible example of a non-genre-appropriate behavior could be, in a setting where characters are expected to life by a code of honor (such as Arthurian stuff, Old West) a character who not only declined a duel (or equivalent) but hunted down, ambushed, and killed the person who had challenged him. It might be realistic--especially in the Old West, where there was much less honor than popular fiction would have you believe--but it would violate the expectations of the kind of fiction the TRPG is attempting to emulate.


----------



## Umbran

Maxperson said:


> Way to dodge the proof that you said you can retroactively justify rolls.




*Mod Note:*

So, rhetorical questions: If one of the mods went through, and read all your restatements of Ovinomancer's position... do you figure we'd feel you did a good job of it?  Or do you think we'd find you've been twisting things to score points?  

Going forward, you should stop making this personal, and if you have so little respect for someone as you are showing here, you just stop arguing with them.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> A possible example of a non-genre-appropriate behavior could be, in a setting where characters are expected to life by a code of honor (such as Arthurian stuff, Old West) a character who not only declined a duel (or equivalent) but hunted down, ambushed, and killed the person who had challenged him. It might be realistic--especially in the Old West, where there was much less honor than popular fiction would have you believe--but it would violate the expectations of the kind of fiction the TRPG is attempting to emulate.



Yes, unless the character was meant to be a villain, in which case violating the accepted norms is genre appropriate for that character.  But, yeah, in a game like Pendragon where the premise is that you're playing knights in Arthurian legend, such action declarations are very much genre-inappropriate.


----------



## FrogReaver

Maxperson said:


> I wasn't talking about established fiction.  I'm talking about the prep that goes into an NPC.  If I know he was an orphan and has a soft spot for that orphanage and its children, which is something the PCs can find out, then they are not going to be able to convince him to burn it down just by a roll.  They would need something like hard proof that the kids were really imps or dopplegangers or something.




I think you may be putting the cart before the horse.  

If an NPC is established to the DM's satisfaction whether in notes or the fiction that he would not burn down the orphanage then he would not do so.  One of the major questions of this thread is whether the DM should use such predetermined behaviors for their NPC's or whether if on game night it might be more fun to have an NPC react a different way.

Now what your question does a good job of is raising the point that it is often desirable to have NPC's unable to be influenced to do certain things.  That's a point I think most everyone here agrees with.

So I don't believe your scenario is gong to highlight any important point that hasn't already been highlighted.  I really think the interesting part of this discussion is about when an NPC should be designed such that PC's have no chance of success / a 100% chance of failure when it comes to performing those triggering actions.

I think one factor in that regard that hasn't been mentioned is failure that results in nearly the status quo is alot different than failure that escalates the scenario to threatening the PC's lives.  I would say that auto-failure that doesn't drastically escalate the stakes in a scene can be introduced at-will with no downside whatsoever.  This covers NPC's like merchants giving away their wares and kings giving away their kingdoms.

But I think the other category is one we really should spend more time exploring.


----------



## FrogReaver

Maxperson said:


> It can lead to issues.  I've seen it.  Due to time constraints I have to improv a lot when I DM.  When you come up with a reason that suddenly dates back to when the PCs first met the NPC and before, it can create a situation where if you had known that reason the first time the PCs encountered that NPC, it would have colored how you portrayed that NPC and how the PCs would have interacted with it.
> 
> It's not enough to simply come up with a reason for the success.  You have to come up with one that won't have changed anything that came before it, which can be hard in some situations.




Agreed.  Those are exactly the kinds of interesting tidbits that everyone does but that don't get explicitly stated.  We all tend to pick "good" success states or at least the best ones our methodologies will allow.  So I don't anticipate he or anyone else would advocate for picking such a justification.  But for the novice it's definitely something to note that they should be watching out for when using that playstyle.


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> A possible example of a non-genre-appropriate behavior could be, in a setting where characters are expected to life by a code of honor (such as Arthurian stuff, Old West) a character who not only declined a duel (or equivalent) but hunted down, ambushed, and killed the person who had challenged him. It might be realistic--especially in the Old West, where there was much less honor than popular fiction would have you believe--but it would violate the expectations of the kind of fiction the TRPG is attempting to emulate.




I can see that if such a game or campaign had that expectation.  I guess I'm thinking of the question in terms of 5e D&D and I don't see much you can do as a PC that wouldn't be genre appropriate.

Also what about having actions rooted in the fiction?  Is that even possible to happen in any game?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Let me lean in on another bit about genre appropriateness.  There's been a few examples in the thread about things like getting a dragon to give up it's hoard on a roll or a king his kingdom.  This goes to genre appropriateness.  In a genre of game that includes dragons having hoards, the genre expectation is that dragons do not give away their hoards.  Similarly, in a genre that has kings, they don't give away their kingdoms on a single ask (or really multiple ones).  This is where you can leverage genre logic to evaluate action declarations.  It doesn't make genre sense for a dragon, which has motivations to amass and keep hoards of treasure, would ever be amenable to give it away just because someone asked for it.  It might make genre sense for it to give away it's hoard, but the reasons for that would have to be extraordinary.  Same with a king, or even a shopkeeper.  Here, genre is doing the work of a 'is this reasonable in this kind of story' test. 

It's not reasonable to try to jump a 50 foot chasm in D&D as a low level character not leveraging any special means.  This shouldn't be given a roll because the outcome is pretty clear.  It is not a feature of my approach that these kinds of declarations receive rolls to begin with.  If I do allow a roll, it's because there's something about the action that is both genre appropriate (I can justify a success and failure within genre expectations) and grounded in the fiction (I can justify a success and failure within the existing fiction), and so narrating that an angel shows up and carries the character across because the player succeeded at the DC I set makes sense in the game as it stands.  I don't see that happening outside of something being established in the action declaration or previous fiction ('an angel has pledged to save you' kind of thing) that would lead to this outcome being reasonable in the fiction.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> Without knowing what the established fiction in your example or what action X is, I can't blanket answer your question.  This isn't being coy -- what's grounded in the fiction for a given action is directly related to what's currently going on in the scene and what's already been established.
> 
> For instance, if it's been established in the fiction that Bob the NPC is blind, and a PC declares they show Bob a picture, then the outcome is that Bob can't see the picture.  No roll is available for that action for which any outcome is possible -- showing a blind man a picture cannot make the blind man see the picture.  However, if the PC leverages some means that fits the fiction to cure the blindness so they can show the picture, presumably using magic or medicine, then that action is grounded in the fiction in that it acknowledges the blind NPC as part of it's declaration.




I don't see action anywhere in that example that isn't genre appropriate.



> I'm going to carry this last example into genre appropriateness.  If we're playing a D&D game, then the action to cure Bob with magic is genre appropriate.  An action to cure Bob with medicine is not (it's not in the genre understanding of non-magical medicine to be able to cure blindness).  However, if we're playing a sci-fi game, then magic is not genre appropriate, but medicine may be (depending on tech levels and whatnot).  If the sci-fi setting includes magic via 'sciency' powers, well, then, magic is back on the table as genre appropriate, couched in the proper terminology (psionics, nanites, whatever).




I don't see one here either.

That said I think I've figured out the issue.  In a game where the GM is the final arbiter of what fictionally happens you will not tend to have any action that actually happens be genre inappropriate because the GM will see to it that the outcome of the action maintains genre appropriateness.  In systems where players have some control over authoring fiction I can see why that would be an important point.  Maybe we can agree it's not very meaningful to someone examining it through the lens of 5e D&D and other such systems?



> These aren't things that I would consider terribly difficult to grasp.   They're not an attempt to carve out anything special.  Grounded in the fiction simply means honors established fiction.  Genre appropriate simply means that the action makes sense in the genre of game you're playing.  These aren't high bars for most players, who are going to do this normally without prompting.  I keep bringing them up in these discussions to forestall people from outlandish examples they think match the adjudication methods I'm discussing.




Given the above I don't think it's terribly difficult to grasp why others struggle to understand those statements.

So I have a question then.  For 5e D&D what rule of thumb would you give to ensure your methodology is used to not produce "outlandish" scenarios?


----------



## fearsomepirate

I started to read the last couple pages about orphanages and got extremely bored. I guess I'm kind of a dull DM on this front because unless it's an N1 type situation where finding out who matters and who doesn't is the point, I more or less tell my players if some detail they're obsessing on is irrelevant. If I fill in much information beyond "Well, the orphans live here. Big ol' place," I will definitely try to make it relevant, because players can't help avoid thinking that if I put effort into the description, it's not a total waste of time to look at it.

I had something like the OP happen in Out of the Abyss. The offending player got roasted and eaten by the mighty Themberchaud. The way players learn to be smart is by severe, merciless, and hilariously overdescribed consequences for being dumb.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> Let me lean in on another bit about genre appropriateness.  There's been a few examples in the thread about things like getting a dragon to give up it's hoard on a roll or a king his kingdom.  This goes to genre appropriateness.  In a genre of game that includes dragons having hoards, the genre expectation is that dragons do not give away their hoards.  Similarly, in a genre that has kings, they don't give away their kingdoms on a single ask (or really multiple ones).  This is where you can leverage genre logic to evaluate action declarations.  It doesn't make genre sense for a dragon, which has motivations to amass and keep hoards of treasure, would ever be amenable to give it away just because someone asked for it.  It might make genre sense for it to give away it's hoard, but the reasons for that would have to be extraordinary.  Same with a king, or even a shopkeeper.  Here, genre is doing the work of a 'is this reasonable in this kind of story' test.
> 
> It's not reasonable to try to jump a 50 foot chasm in D&D as a low level character not leveraging any special means.  This shouldn't be given a roll because the outcome is pretty clear.  It is not a feature of my approach that these kinds of declarations receive rolls to begin with.  If I do allow a roll, it's because there's something about the action that is both genre appropriate (I can justify a success and failure within genre expectations) and grounded in the fiction (I can justify a success and failure within the existing fiction), and so narrating that an angel shows up and carries the character across because the player succeeded at the DC I set makes sense in the game as it stands.  I don't see that happening outside of something being established in the action declaration or previous fiction ('an angel has pledged to save you' kind of thing) that would lead to this outcome being reasonable in the fiction.




This was very helpful.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> I can see that if such a game or campaign had that expectation.  I guess I'm thinking of the question in terms of 5e D&D and I don't see much you can do as a PC that wouldn't be genre appropriate.
> 
> Also what about having actions rooted in the fiction?  Is that even possible to happen in any game?



I would hope it's the standard strived for in all games, actually.  Almost everyone that's posted in this thread has seemed to want to ground things in the fiction.  Even as I disagree with @Lanefan's examples of play as a matter of preference, I don't see what he does as anything other than being grounded in the fiction.  @Lanefan doesn't run how I do, nor do I think I'd enjoy his games (again, preference), but he's a very principled and coherent advocate for his style and I don't see anything wrong with it.  As a matter of general principles, we agree to more than we disagree, but our disagreements go straight to core preferences for me, and, I think, for him.


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> I can see that if such a game or campaign had that expectation.  I guess I'm thinking of the question in terms of 5e D&D and I don't see much you can do as a PC that wouldn't be genre appropriate.
> 
> Also what about having actions rooted in the fiction?  Is that even possible to happen in any game?




For the first, I think there are a few angles. It might depend on how much you want D&D to emulate fantasy novels (and which ones). It might depend on what you feel is appropriate in your world (such as if a GM decides not to allow gunpowder in his games). It might depend which moral questions if any you want to put the PCs in the position of asking (such as the infamous example of killing the baby orcs).

As for rooted in the fiction ... There's plausibility, but that's not all of it. There's something like Chekhov's Gun (If a gun is on the mantel in the first and second acts, it must be fired in the third act; if a gun is fired in the third act, it must be on the mantel in the first and second acts). There's consistency, both character-consistency and world-consistency. There are probably angles I'm not thinking of here.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> I don't see action anywhere in that example that isn't genre appropriate.



Well, I'm talking about grounded in the fiction here, not genre inappropriateness, so I wasn't presenting examples to illuminate that.





> I don't see one here either.



You think it's genre appropriate to declare an action to cure a man of blindness using a magic spell in a hard sci-fi game?

I think that we are either talking past each other in some fundamental way, or the nature of our disagreement on this subject may be intractable.



> That said I think I've figured out the issue.  In a game where the GM is the final arbiter of what fictionally happens you will not tend to have any action that actually happens be genre inappropriate because the GM will see to it that the outcome of the action maintains genre appropriateness.  In systems where players have some control over authoring fiction I can see why that would be an important point.  Maybe we can agree it's not very meaningful to someone examining it through the lens of 5e D&D and other such systems?



No.  I run 5e primarily.  Genre appropriateness is very important to me.  I run a high-fantasy game in Planescape, so players declaring actions about building a bomb using modern chemistry would be genre inappropriate for me -- the action would fail because alchemy, not chemistry, is real in this setting.

I don't really see how choice of game invalidates genre expectations in any way.




> Given the above I don't think it's terribly difficult to grasp why others struggle to understand those statements.



I'm at a loss, honestly, that they aren't grasped.  This seems obvious to me and I really don't understand your objections.  Like, really, I honestly don't.  I'm baffled.



> So I have a question then.  For 5e D&D what rule of thumb would you give to ensure your methodology is used to not produce "outlandish" scenarios?



That the scenario be grounded in established fiction and be genre appropriate.  I really can't do better because these are such fundamental things to my understanding of play that this should be obvious.  I admit to being flummoxed.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> Let me lean in on another bit about genre appropriateness.  There's been a few examples in the thread about things like getting a dragon to give up it's hoard on a roll or a king his kingdom.  This goes to genre appropriateness.  In a genre of game that includes dragons having hoards, the genre expectation is that dragons do not give away their hoards.  Similarly, in a genre that has kings, they don't give away their kingdoms on a single ask (or really multiple ones).  This is where you can leverage genre logic to evaluate action declarations.




So I think we have a vastly different notion about what genre appropriateness actually means because I wouldn't relate any of that to the category of "genre appropriateness"



> It's not reasonable to try to jump a 50 foot chasm in D&D as a low level character not leveraging any special means.




But the action itself - attempting to jump a 50 foot chasm is rooted in the fiction and genre.  It's just we all know what the outcome will be unless there's help!



> grounded in the fiction *(I can justify a success and failure within the existing fiction)*,




See that's a helpful definition, even if I don't think your term lines up very well with that definition.  You will only use existing characters to help narrate/explain a success.  So no sudden angel out of nowhere etc.  I think that's probably enough to keep things from outlandish results.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> I would hope it's the standard strived for in all games, actually.  Almost everyone that's posted in this thread has seemed to want to ground things in the fiction.  Even as I disagree with @Lanefan's examples of play as a matter of preference, I don't see what he does as anything other than being grounded in the fiction.  @Lanefan doesn't run how I do, nor do I think I'd enjoy his games (again, preference), but he's a very principled and coherent advocate for his style and I don't see anything wrong with it.  As a matter of general principles, we agree to more than we disagree, but our disagreements go straight to core preferences for me, and, I think, for him.




There was an important "not" missing from my statement you quoted.  Sorry about that.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> So I think we have a vastly different notion about what genre appropriateness actually means because I wouldn't relate any of that to the category of "genre appropriateness"[/quote[
> I've spent quite a number of words trying to explain what I mean.  Perhaps it's your turn to explain what you see genre appropriateness means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the action itself - attempting to jump a 50 foot chasm is rooted in the fiction and genre.  It's just we all know what the outcome will be unless there's help!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I think I might have grasped a key point of missing information here.  When a character makes an action declaration, they're doing so with the intent that their goal is the outcome.  If this isn't true, we're way out of bounds.  If the player's intent doesn't align with the genre logic of the game/setting, then this is when the action is genre inappropriate.  Presumably, the player of the jumping character intends to successfully cross the chasm with their action declaration.  But, that doesn't fit the genre -- low level characters do not jump 50' chasms with a bit of a run-up.  That takes something extra.  So the intent violates the genre logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See that's a helpful definition, even if I don't think your term lines up very well with that definition.  You will only use existing characters to help narrate/explain a success.  So no sudden angel out of nowhere etc.  I think that's probably enough to keep things from outlandish results.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does "grounded in the fiction" not line up with "can justify both success and failure within the establish fiction?"
> 
> And, no, the fiction might establish how an angel showed up (again, "an angel pledged to save me"), but it's genre expectations that says one doesn't absent appropriate fictional positioning.  Genre expectations in D&D are that angels don't randomly show up to aid you leaping chasms.  (Well, I'd wager that's not a broad genre expectation in D&D.  I suppose you might have a setting where it's appropriate, in which case you'll have a lot of chasm jumping.)  Fiction wouldn't stop it because, fictionally, angels exist and they can show up.  There's nothing in the fiction of the example to prevent an angel showing up, although, absent good reason, it would be a credibility straining occurrence.  Hence, genre logic is a better choice for this.
> 
> Now, you could justify this with genre, if your game features things like guardian angels, or that the PCs are chosen by gods for great things.  This is a case where the genre might indeed demand that you have an angel show up.  This would be an excellent option for a fail-forward or success at cost option.  You can't actually jump the chasm, but your guardian angel shows up and saves you, but now you're geased to fulfill a mission from the gods as payment.  All, of course, provided this is part of the game's established genre logic.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> There was an important "not" missing from my statement you quoted.  Sorry about that.



If it goes where I think it does, yes, that makes for a very different statement.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> Well, I'm talking about grounded in the fiction here, not genre inappropriateness, so I wasn't presenting examples to illuminate that.




Then let me clarify.  I certainly don't see how any of those actions aren't rooted in fiction either.



> You think it's genre appropriate to declare an action to cure a man of blindness using a magic spell in a hard sci-fi game?




Yes - so long as there is a GM that can decide the success or failure of that course of action and thus ensure it fails



> I think that we are either talking past each other in some fundamental way, or the nature of our disagreement on this subject may be intractable.




I think it's simpler.  The terms you used to reference your ideas sucked to illuminate them IMO.



> No.  I run 5e primarily.  Genre appropriateness is very important to me.  I run a high-fantasy game in Planescape, so players declaring actions about building a bomb using modern chemistry would be genre inappropriate for me -- the action would fail because alchemy, not chemistry, is real in this setting.




Then they can try all they want.  The result will be no bomb.  But the action itself fits very well within the genre.  A person that doesn't fully understand or has some novel understanding about how alchemy works is trying to use it to do something that is impossible to do with it.  That to me fits perfectly in the genre we are talking about.



> I don't really see how choice of game invalidates genre expectations in any way.




I explained that.  It has to do with who authors the fiction.  In a game where the player could author fiction then he could presumably use alchemy to create that bomb but such cannot happen in a game where the DM is the sole author.



> That the scenario be grounded in *established* fiction




The word *established *there makes a mountain of difference.  It's something I think you've been leaving off to now but using the form "grounded in fiction".



> and be genre appropriate.




See, I don't see how that as long as the GM is the resolver of actions that anything can be done in the setting that goes against genre and if the outcomes of all your actions are thus always genre appropriate I'm not sure how focusing on the genre appropriateness of the resulting fiction after an action declaration has been resolved and narrated could ever work as a constraint on action declarations.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> I think it's simpler.  The terms you used to reference your ideas sucked to illuminate them IMO.



Not much more to discuss, really, is there?


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> your post is a bit jumbled




One thing you wanted me to do is define genre appropriateness.  I don't think there are "genre appropriate actions".  Instead it's about "genre appropriate outcomes".

I think there's a need to elaborate a bit on genre's that revolve around codes of conduct.  I would say at that point the act of declaring an action against your code of conduct is also itself an outcome of breaking your code of conduct and if breaking your code of conduct was genre inappropriate then your action by itself in this case yielded a "genre inappriate outcome".  However, even in the case of codes of conduct it's still about the outcome, its just that your action at that point has become an outcome to itself.  This is quite unlike other actions.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> Not much more to discuss, really, is there?




If you take my stance as unchangeable then you really haven't been paying attention to my interactions in this thread.  On the other hand, maybe your stance in unchangeable, in which case there really is nothing more to discuss.  Let me know.


----------



## Campbell

In my experience running and playing a host of OSR, indie, and mainstream games the amount of fiction that gets established or expanded on that could have potentially impacted play is massive.  Unless you are going to write 10 page backstories for player characters, spend months preparing before a single session is played, and keep immaculately detailed and rigorously annotated notes you are going to be establishing so much fiction that you are going to get it wrong sometimes. Even If you do all that you will still likely get it wrong sometimes.

Our minds cannot even really contain one character's entire fictional life - much less a world or multiverse.

This is probably just my OSR and indie bias shining through, but my primary focus will always be on keeping things as compelling as possible. This passage from The Nightmares Underneath, an OSR game about delving into madness inducing nightmare realms, captures my feelings on how to run D&D type games fairly well. 



			
				The Nightmares Underneath p.309 said:
			
		

> *What You Do*
> 
> The main things you do as the GM are: put the players’ characters in situations that you think are interesting and present them with challenges that you find engaging. It’s definitely not your job to beat them, to win the game, or to make them lose. But it’s also not your job to make sure they win, to entertain them, or to tell them a story. Pay attention to what they find interesting and engaging about the game you are playing, and try to incorporate, or reincorporate, those elements you find inspiring yourself. Playing an entertaining game and creating an enjoyable piece of fiction is every player’s responsibility. As the GM, you’re something of a facilitator—and probably the one who will end up doing the most work—but that doesn’t mean you’re the one in charge. You don’t have to be the boss.
> 
> You may be called the “Game Master,” but it’s really just a legacy term, used here because it is so common. If you’re a master of anything it’s a master of ceremonies— you’re a presenter and a facilitator first, not the star of the show. The real stars are the other players and their characters. They won’t have much to do if there’s no dungeons for them to raid, that’s true, but without those characters, that dungeon is just going to sit there, collecting dust.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> Not number of decision-points.
> 
> Set of possible solutions to any given decision-point being winnowed by the GM toward 2 or, especially, 1.



As in, the GM will only let one choice succeed and all the rest must fail no matter what?

If yes, I agree - that's railroady...perhaps.

However, there's also nothing wrong with now and then a situation where, while the players for whatever reason have reason to believe there's a choice of options, there really isn't.  They just don't know that.

A hypothetical example: consider a party trying to gain access to a building or castle, which unknown to the players has been sealed against access* except via the sewers, which the defenders assumed were already sealed and never checked on.  The players, however, think they have options such as trying the main door, trying to fly to the roof and go in that way, trying to climb to what looks like a window but is now bricked up from the inside.

Now if the players/PCs come up with something truly inventive (or destructive!) that bypasses the sewers as an access, let it happen and let the chips fall where they may; but in normal play the sewers will eventually turn out to be the only viable access - never mind a party might luck out and try the sewers first without realizing they've stumbled onto the only way in! (as DM I've had the latter sort of thing happen more than once, in different situations)

* - maybe due to some Necromancer taking years to cast a spell inside without interruption that the PCs have been sent to interrupt, or whatever other in-fiction reason/backstory exists.



> The more a game features this paradigm, “the more railroady it will become.”



Perhaps.

It's kind of analagous to a choke-point in dungeon design - in general they're not great but now and then having one makes sense, so in it goes.


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> "Red herrings" was explicitly called out as an intended result.



Yes it was, said by he who did said calling-out. 



> The example given was explicitly about confusing the situation with red herrings and extra information so as to force the players to weed through it to find their goal.  It was even explicitly said that if they do this weeding in a noticeable way the assassins would be prepared.



Exactly.  You've got it.


> There's no way for the players to make meaningful action resolutions at the start of the presented scenario because there's no information provided to leverage -- anything they try will be a guess first,



Again, exactly; and as intended.  They don't have the knowledge they need and thus have to find a way of obtaining it.  Doing so will very likely not be easy, nor safe, nor without some frustration and dead ends - and presenting these challenges is the whole point of the scenario.

And note what I said there: specifically and intentionally included within those challenges is frustration.  Impatient players (or players running impatient PCs) aren't likely to do well in this scenario, as it's in part a test of patience and perseverance - a test that I-as-player would probably fail every time, but that's no reason for it not to exist! 


> at which point the GM will (especially given the later post of possible details) increase the level of chaff with fully details NPCs that have no reason to be present other than to be a red herring and drive the fiction towards a point the GM can use to justify having the assassins alerted.



If the PCs are careless, or careful but unlucky, then the Assassins will likely be alerted.  However if the PCs are careful, or careless but lucky, the Assassins likely won't be alerted.  There's also the slight-but-not-zero possibility that the Assassins will be alerted in error, either to the wrong threat or by jumping at shadows.

Never mind that if the PCs/players realize they've mis-stepped (perhaps something about the Clothier's behaviour or manner clues them in, or they visit the Wit and Wisdom and things don't go smoothly) and potentially alerted the Assassins, the party still has options: for example they can always step back and wait a few days or even weeks for any alerts to die down before trying again; or if time-pressed they can try disguises or hiring locals to gather info; or they can even make themselves obvious and then try laying their own ambush in hopes the Assassins will come to them.



> This is an example of using scene setting as GM Force -- Force being using GM authority to drive to a pre-determined or desired outcome regardless of player inputs.



Ah, but here you're making a big assumption: that I-as-DM or I-as-module-writer have a desired outcome in mind.

But chances are it doesn't matter much to me* whether they find the guild or not, or what they do with or to it if-when they do.

I'll happily run them through the process looking for it; and if they find it I'll gladly run whatever they decide to do next, be it attack the place or alert the authorities or whatever; and if they decide to turn away and ignore it I'll just as gladly run whatever else they get up to instead.

* - exception: in a written module where the whole point of the adventure is in fact to a) find and b) take down the guild, one hopes there's some what-ifs given by the author should the 'find' process go sideways somehow.


----------



## Lanefan

fearsomepirate said:


> I started to read the last couple pages about orphanages and got extremely bored. I guess I'm kind of a dull DM on this front because unless it's an N1 type situation where finding out who matters and who doesn't is the point, I more or less tell my players if some detail they're obsessing on is irrelevant. If I fill in much information beyond "Well, the orphans live here. Big ol' place," I will definitely try to make it relevant, because players can't help avoid thinking that if I put effort into the description, it's not a total waste of time to look at it.



Which is actually a problem IMO, in that by your descriptions you in effect lead the players by the nose to what's important - or important in your view.  Soft railroad, maybe?

As DM I've had entire adventures spawn from players latching on to an irrelevancy and running away with it.  In the game I play in, the DM told me not long ago that about half of the 12-years-so-far storyline we've played out arose from us players latching on to some early thing that he thought was irrelevant but we thought was vital, and just not letting it go.  (the other half of the storyline is much closer to what he originally had in mind, it seems)


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> If you take my stance as unchangeable then you really haven't been paying attention to my interactions in this thread.  On the other hand, maybe your stance in unchangeable, in which case there really is nothing more to discuss.  Let me know.



Um, no.  Your statement (that I quoted) moved from asking about my position to characterizing my position in derogatory terms.  I'll be happy to discuss, but I'm not going to do so while being personally attacked.   I have no take on your position being unchangeabke, and have said nothing at all on that topic, and it doesn't, at all, represent my opinion. 

I have had no problem responding to questions about my thought or on expressing my opinions quite verbosely in this thread.  Why are people assuming I mean things I haven't said?


----------



## Scott Christian

prabe said:


> As I say often, I am fortunate to the point of blessed to have excellent players in both the campaigns I'm now running, one of whom is my wife, who takes copious notes and shares them with the table via Google Docs (Campaign One is 600 pages through 52 sessions; Campaign Two is 180 pages through 19 sessions); it's easy to keep things consistent with that much information.




Thanks for the info. Always appreciated. We are both lucky. And by the way, your wife taking notes - WOW! That is awesome!


----------



## Scott Christian

Lanefan said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I'm almost the opposite, in that I prefer a campaign to be open-ended and NOT to have an obvious visible end-point until and unless we reach it.  Even when I'm roughly planning ahead as a DM and can see a possible end-point, there's no guarantee we'll ever get there (which is the state in my current campaign; I've a vague end point in mind but for all I know it'll never be reached).  Side quests, unrelated adventures, player-driven adventures, extended downtime activities - all of these quite nicely divert from any progress toward an end state, and that's fine with me.
> 
> That said, defineable goals and end-points and even quasi-hard-APs can certainly be embedded within a larger campaign; but the end of the AP merely turns those characters loose to go do something else in the setting - join other parties, carry on together, retire, or whatever.
> 
> Come to think of it, of the last two quasi-AP's I've had in my campaign one was entirely a long side-quest (literally, as in three characters got Quest-ed to do something) and the other's relationship to the overall plot didn't become apparent until quite some time afterwards.




Nice! I don't ever want to come off sounding like one way is better than the other, just putting my experiences out there. Especially when it comes to making the locale/world feel real. But I have no doubt that many players and GM's experiences differ from mine. Yours is a great example. 

The side quest is interesting to me. And not to open up a can of worms by comparing fiction and RPG's, but as a GM, I have always treated them as a chapter - no more. Sometimes the repercussions of their side quest come back into play, but I try my hardest to not let it go over one session. To have a campaign of one long side quest - that is intriguing.


----------



## Fenris-77

Dungeon choke points are not, IMO, railroading. Good dungeon design, especially for larger dungeons, usually requires some gating and separation of various areas. Sometimes that means there's a choke point. That says nothing about how the players should act, or how they can approach the dungeon as a whole. Sometimes the physical reality of a place limits options. Clever PCs might find a way around, and that's also a good thing too, but the place is the place. Walls have gates, so getting into the castle means that there will be limited options. In @Lanefan 's example above, where all entries are blocked except one is maybe extreme, but it's not a railroad. It could be a railroad, but I think that has more to do with how the DM handles player actions than it does the physical space. If the DM is constantly ruling that actions X, Y and Z don't work to gain entry because he had already decided that only the one entry had any chance of success_ that's_ a railroad. If the DM is open to the unexpected then it's not, it's just a location that's bloody hard to get into.

Generally speaking the whole idea of railroading centers on adjudication rather than adventure or encounter design. Liner plots, for example, can be railroads or not based on that measure, but aren't inherently railroads simply based on design. It is certainly the case that some linear plots are actually designed to be railroad-y to some extent, but that still doesn't enforce that play type. A focus on the logic of the fictional frame, and a certain commitment to playing to find out what happens will generally keep you off the tracks.


----------



## Scott Christian

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm not convinced the correlation is as tight as you seem to claim.  I'm running a 5e game where all of the PCs have their own agenda, but they have great cohesion -- acting to help each other's agendas and/or following team agendas.  Even in games that are fully story-now, they don't have to fracture this much.  Blades in the Dark and Dungeon World are fantastic examples of team games that don't feature GM plotting.
> 
> Can you lose cohesion?  Sure.  Is it perhaps easier to do so in a game where the GM caters to individual goals and doesn't push or help develop team goals?  Sure.  Is it an outcome of allowing for more player input into the fiction?  No, I don't think so.



You are correct, the correlation may not be tight. I'm just speaking from my experience. (I feel as though I have a pretty broad range, as many of us here do. My strong points in that experience may be the amount of different groups I've played multiple years with, as I am at 11 because I move a lot.) Beside the point, I feel your Q&A session at the end is spot on. 
One thing I would note is the difference, at least in my mind, between a story arc and a character arc. In my experience characters can have different character arcs, and as long as the story arc is solid, there's still a solid cohesion. It's when the character arcs are loose and not well thought out; they are not integrated into the main story arc, that the cohesion is lost. One DM I played with did a great job with this: At the start of the campaign your backstory must include a person who is important to you that disappears. You can also include a plague spreading in your backstory. Our character arcs were written based off our information. Some were sad, some ended happily, but all were integrated into the plague/kidnap story line.


----------



## Scott Christian

FrogReaver said:


> Given the above I don't think it's terribly difficult to grasp why others struggle to understand those statements.
> 
> So I have a question then. For 5e D&D what rule of thumb would you give to ensure your methodology is used to not produce "outlandish" scenarios?



 Got to this and had to respond. So I have not read ahead of this message. But, the question you are asking is something people do naturally (99% of the time) at the table. You have a genre - a setting. The characters act within the setting. No rocket boots invented, no 50' jump at level 1 as a D&D character. Outlandish scenarios rarely happen, and a good DM can deal with them pretty easily.


----------



## Scott Christian

Lanefan said:


> Which is actually a problem IMO, in that by your descriptions you in effect lead the players by the nose to what's important - or important in your view.  Soft railroad, maybe?
> 
> As DM I've had entire adventures spawn from players latching on to an irrelevancy and running away with it.  In the game I play in, the DM told me not long ago that about half of the 12-years-so-far storyline we've played out arose from us players latching on to some early thing that he thought was irrelevant but we thought was vital, and just not letting it go.  (the other half of the storyline is much closer to what he originally had in mind, it seems)




This right here - 12 year storyline. I suppose being "loose" in a storyline depends on how long your campaign will run.


----------



## Campbell

@Scott Christian

What exactly do you mean by story arc? Story is what happens when protagonism meets antagonism. How can there be story (rather than exposition) independent of what the characters do?


----------



## Fenris-77

Campbell said:


> @Scott Christian
> 
> What exactly do you mean by story arc? Story is what happens when protagonism meets antagonism. How can there be story (rather than exposition) independent of what the characters do?



Well, not to speak for Scott, but sometimes things happen in a game world independent of what the characters decide to do. If the Duke is plotting to overthrow the King, those events will proceed regardless of PC involvement. The arc of those events is indeed a story arc, just not the PCs story.


----------



## hawkeyefan

I don’t know how anyone can really disagree that when a GM removes options available to the PCs to resolve an obstacle, things become more of a railroad. It seems self evident.

Especially when every example consists of things that are not actually full on roadblocks. More guards at the gate? That’s not the same as saying “the PCs cannot pass the gate no matter what”. More guards simply makes it tougher....a bigger fight, or more people to sneak past, or more people to trick, or more targets for a spell.

There’s no reason that a group of players can’t come up with ideas on how to get into a castle any number of ways. Sure, the sewer may be the path of least resistance, but between skills, spells, or martial prowess, the PCs have tools at their disposal. 

It’s only a problem when the GM has made it so that specific paths are simply never going to work. This NPC cannot be reasoned with, _no matter what_, or this door cannot be opened, _no matter what_, or this trap cannot be disarmed, _no matter what_.

Creating different routes to success, and placing different degrees of difficulty on those routes is not railroading....it’s creating meaningful decision points. 

“We can storm the gate and it’ll be a tough fight, but once we clear the guards we’ll have a direct route to the keep. Or we can traverse the sewers, it’ll take longer and we’ve heard rumors of some creature living there, but we’ll arrive near the keep unnoticed.”

Removing one of these paths is not very good design. Especially not when it’s simply to force the other path as the only way. That’s a railroad. 

I’ll add this caveat....I do this from time to time. I place the PCs in a situation where there is one way out. Every now and then, I think it’s okay to do this....I just tend to help them recognize this may be the situation instead of letting them deliberate multiple options that I know won’t work. I don’t see the value in wasting time discussing options that are not truly available. I don’t do this often...I prefer at least one alternative path to success for any obstacle/encounter.


----------



## Fenris-77

Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay, wherein @hawkeyefan reproduces Fenris-77's posts without attribution, and Fenris-77 graciously accepts that imitation is a most sincere form of flattery.  

Ahh, I'm having one of those days. A little giddy. I actually have a bone to pick though. 'Removing options' implies that there were, or should have been certain options, and that the DM has taken some of them away. I don't really think that follows all that well. Not every castle or manor house has the same options for ingress (to keep the example at hand flowing) and some will undoubtedly be better guarded and/or less accessible. The DM sets the parameters for the location when he designs it. It's not railroading until he starts to adjudicate by fiat to prevent anything else from happening. Or, worse yet, if the DM predetermines that only one method of overcoming that obstacle will work. Only having one entrance isn't the issue, it's limiting player options and creativity. I'd agree that in general you should have some options available, and that's most of my encounter design, but sometimes there's only one door.


----------



## iserith

hawkeyefan said:


> I don’t know how anyone can really disagree that when a GM removes options available to the PCs to resolve an obstacle, things become more of a railroad. It seems self evident.




I don't agree with this definition which may have arisen from the Forge (?). Constrained options is not necessarily an example of a DM railroading otherwise we'd all be railroading. Railroading is really more about a DM forcing an outcome of X even though the PCs have avoided X and chosen Y. To that end it is a degenerate form of play in a game where player choice supposedly matters. Constraining choices to the point where only the one solution will work is really more on par with "pixelbitching" as I see it, but it's still not railroading, even though I would say both are not good examples of how to play the game.


----------



## Scott Christian

Campbell said:


> @Scott Christian
> 
> What exactly do you mean by story arc? Story is what happens when protagonism meets antagonism. How can there be story (rather than exposition) independent of what the characters do?




In my example, the DM (a great DM imho) had the story arc - a rash of kidnappings and a plague spreading. The creators (they were the same antagonists) wanted the kingdom to go into chaos so they could take power. So they kidnapped people to test their plague.
The story arc is the plot. The DM in this case has the plague and kidnappings occurring and continuing to occur. It has an exposition, rising action, climax, resolution, and denouement. These will happen; however, they may change based on the character's actions. The climax may be they infect the royal family or they are thwarted by the characters. The rising action may be they keep kidnapping innocent people across the land, or some of the kidnappings may be stopped by the characters. The kingdom might fall or it might be saved by the characters. But the events of the story are in place. 
Two quick points: One, it is not railroading. The characters have plenty of options, but they also have a backstory that made them have a shared goal in stopping the kidnapping/plague. Two, a good DM presents the challenges that are able to be overcome, so success is possible, and even probable. But there is the chance of failure. That takes planning unless you fudge dice rolls or change hit points mid-battle.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Fenris-77 said:


> Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay, wherein @hawkeyefan reproduces Fenris-77's posts without attribution, and Fenris-77 graciously accepts that imitation is a most sincere form of flattery.




I was responding to the exchange between Manbearcat and Lanefan.....sorry for missing your reply. 

Any flattery was accidental 




Fenris-77 said:


> Ahh, I'm having one of those days. A little giddy. I actually have a bone to pick though. 'Removing options' implies that there were, or should have been certain options, and that the DM has taken some of them away. I don't really think that follows all that well. Not every castle or manor house has the same options for ingress (to keep the example at hand flowing) and some will undoubtedly be better guarded and/or less accessible. The DM sets the parameters for the location when he designs it. It's not railroading until he starts to adjudicate by fiat to prevent anything else from happening. Or, worse yet, if the DM predetermines that only one method of overcoming that obstacle will work. Only having one entrance isn't the issue, it's limiting player options and creativity. I'd agree that in general you should have some options available, and that's most of my encounter design, but sometimes there's only one door.




Well I think this branch of the conversation sprang forth from discussion about what's "impossible" for PCs to achieve, and how it's up to the DM to decide what is flat out impossible. Which I think may be perfectly fine in some ways (genre expectations and so on) but is more problematic in others (this NPC will not negotiate ever never ever). 

And I don't think that having some paths restricted for whatever reason means that the game is a pure railroad.....just that the more you do that, the more it moves toward the railroad end of the spectrum.


----------



## Fenris-77

hawkeyefan said:


> I was responding to the exchange between Manbearcat and Lanefan.....sorry for missing your reply.
> 
> Any flattery was accidental



Whatever makes you feel better brah.  I'll take what I can get.



hawkeyefan said:


> Well I think this branch of the conversation sprang forth from discussion about what's "impossible" for PCs to achieve, and how it's up to the DM to decide what is flat out impossible. Which I think may be perfectly fine in some ways (genre expectations and so on) but is more problematic in others (this NPC will not negotiate ever never ever).
> 
> And I don't think that having some paths restricted for whatever reason means that the game is a pure railroad.....just that the more you do that, the more it moves toward the railroad end of the spectrum.



I'd still maintain that adjudication is the primer mover, but I also think that constant design choices where there is only one option probably indexes the kind of adjudication style that produces railroading. It _could_ also index the tendency of beginners to design a string of encounters like a book's plot though. I think a lot of new DMs design adventures like that and then struggle when their players go off script. I don't think they are necessarily railroad DMs though, that's a pretty natural part of the adventure design learning curve IMO.


----------



## hawkeyefan

iserith said:


> I don't agree with this definition which may have arisen from the Forge (?). Constrained options is not necessarily an example of a DM railroading otherwise we'd all be railroading. Railroading is really more about a DM forcing an outcome of X even though the PCs have avoided X and chosen Y. To that end it is a degenerate form of play in a game where player choice supposedly matters. Constraining choices to the point where only the one solution will work is really more on par with "pixelbitching" as I see it, but it's still not railroading, even though I would say both are not good examples of how to play the game.




There's reasonable constraint, sure. I don't think that constraining options results in a railroad. 

I think it's more about the presence of apparent paths, only to discover that really there is only one path that will be allowed. I think that this generally happens when the DM prefers a certain path for whatever reason ("but I mapped out the sewers and printed stat blocks for the monsters there" or similar). 

I don't really see the distinction you're making except maybe that it's the outcome of the chosen path rather than there only being one path? Okay, sure....but I think being forced along one path only is pretty in line with where the term railroading came from. 

In this case, sure maybe the PCs won't make it through the sewers, maybe they will....so it's not the outcome that's predetermined, just the fact that any other avenue of entry to the castle is unavailable, leaving only one means. It's the sewers for them, and nothing else. That's definitely pretty railroady in my book. 

Sure, they could go into the sewers and then fight the monster they find there, or sneak past it, or somehow bribe it......there are still options, potentially. Unless the DM decides, no this thing can't be bribed in any way, and it has tremorsense, so you can't sneak past it, even if you're invisible, it doesn't speak common, so you can't reason with it....and so on. 

These kinds of decisions on the DM's part push things further toward a railroad, I think. They can happen at different points. Any time the PCs have decisions to make, removing what should be possible paths to take, is what I'm talking about.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> Well I think this branch of the conversation sprang forth from discussion about what's "impossible" for PCs to achieve, and how it's up to the DM to decide what is flat out impossible. Which I think may be perfectly fine in some ways (genre expectations and so on) but is more problematic in others (this NPC will not negotiate ever never ever).
> 
> And I don't think that having some paths restricted for whatever reason means that the game is a pure railroad.....just that the more you do that, the more it moves toward the railroad end of the spectrum.




I think that in conversations--especially conversations online--it can sound as though people believe choices (like railroad/not-railroad) are binary, when in reality they are each on a continuum. While there may be extreme sandboxes on one end and extreme railroads on the other, I think most adventures/campaigns and parts thereof are likely to be somewhere in between. Having an optional (from the PCs' POV) NPC who won't negotiate at all is different from making that NPC mandatory, and is different from having that NPC merely have limits on what they will cede in a negotiation, and is different from having that NPC react badly to being insulted.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Fenris-77 said:


> Whatever makes you feel better brah.  I'll take what I can get.
> 
> 
> I'd still maintain that adjudication is the primer mover, but I also think that constant design choices where there is only one option probably indexes the kind of adjudication style that produces railroading. It _could_ also index the tendency of beginners to design a string of encounters like a book's plot though. I think a lot of new DMs design adventures like that and then struggle when their players go off script. I don't think they are necessarily railroad DMs though, that's a pretty natural part of the adventure design learning curve IMO.




Sure, I agree with that. I don't even think that railroading is 100% bad. Some folks are fine with some, others are fine with an entire campaign that's a railroad. I don't think that one instance of railroading means that a game is ruined or anything like that. 

I just think that a game tends to be better when there are more options available as paths to success, and when those paths aren't arbitrarily blocked by the GM.


----------



## pemerton

FrogReaver said:


> Thinking more about the discussion of causality.  Say you try to jump across a 50 ft canyon.  The DM allows a check and you roll a 20.  You fail to jump far enough, but a friendly angel grabs you from certain death and flys you on to the other side.  This is a 2nd order causal relationship as I defined above because your jump action directly led to the actions of the angel.
> 
> But this doesn't feel right does it?  It's a bit too spectacular I think.  Which means to me that a success state framed in even a 2nd order causal way is not enough to properly constrain the "fictional success" model to lead to good success states.



My first response to your angel example is that the problem with it is its failure to follow from the fiction.

This seems like a good time to trot out an old example from 4e play:


The PCs were fighting a NPC hexer/warlock.
The NPC successfully attacked the paladin PC (of the Raven Queen) with his Baleful Polymorph, turning the PC into a frog.
More stuff happened that didn't directly involve the frog.
As per the effect duration, I narrated the frog turning back into the paladin.
The paladin PC (as narrated by the player) advanced on the NPC, threatening him in the name of the Raven Queen.
The NPC (as narrated by me) sneered back that "I'm not afraid of you and your mistress - I turned you into a frog."
WIthout missing a beat, the paladin (as spoken by the player) replied "And my mistress turned me back," the obvious and intended implication being that the Raven Queen and her servants are more powerful than the hexer's magic.

Now every time I post that example it seems to cause at least a slight degree of havoc, but I keep bringing it out because:

* I like it - it was a fun moment of play that I still remember years later;​​* It shows that players taking control of the narrative won't wreck the game;​​* It shows that there is no _general _contradiction between a player playing his/her PC from the point of view of first person immersion and the player engaging in narration that settles truths outside the immediate causal power of that player's PC;​​* It shows that the relationship between mechanical processes (eg in this case me applying the timing rule written in the NPC's stat block and hence narrating that the frog turns back into the paladin) and in-fiction causation (in this case, the paladin's mistress turned him back from being a frog) can be very flexible, but that _the shared fiction is primary_.​
I think @Manbearcat's example of the guard - while it has a different structure of play from what I've described, because it's the GM narrating consequences of a player-side mechanical process rather than a player narrating consquences of a GM-side mechanical process - is similarly demonstrating flexibility _within the constraint of fidelity to the shared fiction_.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> I just think that a game tends to be better when there are more options available as paths to success, and when those paths aren't arbitrarily blocked by the GM.




I think the game tends to be better when there are paths to success the GM hasn't thought of.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> I've spent quite a number of words trying to explain what I mean. Perhaps it's your turn to explain what you see genre appropriateness means.



I don't know about @FrogReaver, but to me genre appropriateness is not having Cowboys and pistols showing up in a purely fantasy game.  It's not having the Starship Enterprise and phasers showing up in an Agatha Christie murder mystery.  It's keeping the things in the genre appropriate to the genre.  

In a fantasy genre game both kings and dragons would be genre appropriate, as are hordes and kingdoms.  Trying to convince them to give up hordes and or kingdoms, since both can have both, has nothing to do with genre appropriateness.  That would be a matter of being appropriate within the fiction or not.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> I think that in conversations--especially conversations online--it can sound as though people believe choices (like railroad/not-railroad) are binary, when in reality they are each on a continuum. While there may be extreme sandboxes on one end and extreme railroads on the other, I think most adventures/campaigns and parts thereof are likely to be somewhere in between. Having an optional (from the PCs' POV) NPC who won't negotiate at all is different from making that NPC mandatory, and is different from having that NPC merely have limits on what they will cede in a negotiation, and is different from having that NPC react badly to being insulted.




Yes, I agree with all that. With the possible exceptions of "NPCs who never x"; not that I think it's impossible to come up with ideas on what a NPC will never do or be convinced to do somehow, but only that I think that this is used far more liberally than it should be.

I think what @Manbearcat was saying, and what I've added or agreed with, took that into consideration. It's a spectrum. The more options the GM removes from the PCs, the more railroady things tend to get. 

That doesn't mean there are never valid reasons to limit options or to block specific ones or to otherwise place constraints on things. Just that a GM should always strongly consider the impact that removing options may have.


----------



## iserith

hawkeyefan said:


> There's reasonable constraint, sure. I don't think that constraining options results in a railroad.
> 
> I think it's more about the presence of apparent paths, only to discover that really there is only one path that will be allowed. I think that this generally happens when the DM prefers a certain path for whatever reason ("but I mapped out the sewers and printed stat blocks for the monsters there" or similar).




Right, but you also said "I don’t know how anyone can really disagree that when a GM removes options available to the PCs to resolve an obstacle, things become more of a railroad. It seems self evident." I think you have the right of this in the post to which I'm responding, but I disagree with this part here.



hawkeyefan said:


> I don't really see the distinction you're making except maybe that it's the outcome of the chosen path rather than there only being one path? Okay, sure....but I think being forced along one path only is pretty in line with where the term railroading came from.




It has more to do in my view with co-opting or negating players choices, sometimes hiding it behind the illusion of choice. The DM presents X, Y, and Z as paths. The players choose Y. The DM presents X anyway. That's railroading. Constraints on particular decisions because of the fictional context isn't the same thing, even if it's constrained down to just the one choice.

I don't view this as a spectrum. You're either railroading or you're not. Now, an adventure may be more linear and linearity could probably be described as being on a spectrum, but that's not the same as railroading.


----------



## prabe

iserith said:


> I don't view this as a spectrum. You're either railroading or you're not. Now, an adventure may be more linear and linearity could probably be described as being on a spectrum, but that's not the same as railroading.




This is fair, I think. There might be varying amounts of railroading a given player is willing to tolerate, though, and it might be easier for a more linear adventure to be (or at least seem to be) a railroad.


----------



## pemerton

Scott Christian said:


> the diplomat can try to thwart the barbarian from killing. But, if they are fighting a pivotal bad guy - he probably shouldn't.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Some social encounters are scripted. If you don't run any that way, good for you. But many are - specifically pivotal NPC's. A scene where players meet the Captain of the guards, and notice she has a commanding presence and all her actions indicate a no-nonsense NPC that doesn't take well to intimidation. She is surrounded by guards asking the PC's to check on some missing guards. It is made clear she is reaching into her own coin purse to pay the players. If the players decide they want their barbarian to use intimidation, the roll needed would be much higher (or near impossible) than if they showed her respect. This NPC is pivotal. She will be in and out of the adventurer's lives for three or four sessions. Her demeanor is made clear. If the players don't pick up on it, or if the barbarian is "bored" and wants to thwart the diplomat's chance to shine, so be it. But, in the end it's not being considerate.
> 
> As I stated earlier. This is not a random NPC. It's not the tailor or blacksmith or barkeep the barbarian is using intimidation on to stay open an extra hour. It is a pivotal NPC. And pivotal NPC's are where the main storyline take place. Maybe we should name them NPC and npc to denote the type.



This whole approach seems to start from a different assumption about play from my normal one. You seem to be envisaging a _main storyline_ that the GM is presenting/narrating, and that as part of that main storyline certain events “have” to take place, and have to resolve within a certain range of parameters. Hence these ideas like _pivotal bad guys_ and _pivotal NPCs_. As you present those notions, the status of being “pivotal” seems to be the result of a choice made by the GM in advance of play.



Fanaelialae said:


> It seems to me from my own experience with improvisation that it would encourage you to hold back on details.  After all, the more the PCs hear about the Captain after they enter town, the less freedom you have to improvise as in the example. Once they hear that he's loyal to the baron, it's established. Whereas, when I prep an area I can be quite generous with the details. That lends depth to the world, IMO.



This is very different from my own experience. An approach to play in which the details of the situation are established by the GM as part of responsive framing and in an interplay with action declaration and resolution creates a very high degree of immersion and vibrant, evocative fiction. To give a concrete example: the giant steading in my Cortex+ game that I posted about uphtread was more “real” and vibrant in play than the G1 steading that it was inspired by – precisely because the description (including its smell, its wolves, the barn with the giant oxen, etc) were all established as part of the dynamics of play rather than being narrated unilaterally by the GM from a pre-authored description.



Fanaelialae said:


> I don't agree that just because the players rolled a good check, that the world suddenly changes to make the loyal Captain flip on his boss. Now, if the Captain is disloyal or I haven't determined his loyalty, that's one thing. But my game world doesn't necessarily change just because the players rolled well.
> 
> It doesn't matter whether the players are aware of the information or not, if it is something I've established then it's unlikely to change just because they rolled well. If I haven't established it, then it's absolutely open to a good roll like you've described.
> 
> What does this buy me? Verisimilitude - an increased sense that the world exists outside of and isn't simply being generated for the PCs.





Fanaelialae said:


> Yup, the big difference is that I treat my notes as (reasonably) set in stone regardless of whether the players are aware of them





Fanaelialae said:


> I don't necessarily consider my notes completely immutable, but I do need a very good reason to disregard them. Primarily for reasons of verisimilitude, as I described.



Putting these posts together, I gather than when you refer to _the world_ and _my game world_, you mean something like “the stuff that’s written down in the GM’s notes” together with “the stuff that the GM extrapolates in imagination from his/her notes”.

And you seem to be saying that that stuff includes _outcomes of action resolution_ – that is, the GM’s predetermination, or decision on the spot by extrapolation, about what NPCs will or won’t do when sincere action declarations are made with the goal of influencing those NPCs.

That’s very different from how I run my games (be those D&D or other systems).



Fanaelialae said:


> I think plenty of interesting play experiences can arise from sticking to your notes. Having to deal with an offended baron isn't necessarily any less interesting than having the Captain depose him.



I’m not sure what you mean here by _having to deal with_.

The way I see it is this: the players encounter the baron. In the ensuing interaction, the players try and influence the baron. The GM decides – based on extrapolation from his/her notes – that as a result of one aspect of that attempt (eg the insult) the baron is now offended and wants to punish the PCs.

What has happened there is that the scene has transitioned from one of _negotiation_ to one of _coping with a threat of punishment_ simply by way of GM decision-making. The players didn’t want the situation to transition that way, but the GM decided anyway without the use of any action resolution framework that would determine whose preference about the fiction should prevail.

That is a _very high_ degree of control exerted by the GM over the unfolding of the ingame situation



Maxperson said:


> The guard captain who was an orphan saved by the orphanage and has a soft spot for all the orphans there is simply not going to burn them all to death regardless of what you try when you attempt to influence him to do so.  It's not railroading to simply inform the player that there's no chance of success.



This goes right back to @FrogReaver’s point that I pick up just below, and my response is very similar (and consistent with what I’ve already been saying in this post): _why is the GM including this NPC in the scene_, given that the players (for whatever reason) regard it as important to burn down the orphanage?

The GM could include a guard captain with whatever motivations. Or could have the strength of the captain’s feelings be established _as an outcome of resolution_ rather than _as an input into resolution_. So why include this particular captain? What effect is it meant to have on the play experience?



FrogReaver said:


> a DM can always put an impossible NPC in place for any PC that is being played toward anything other than survival and accumulation of wealth.  If the DM wants he can place an NPC in front of any such PC that will be impossible for them to handle.  Or stepping back a bit from the absoluteness of impossibility we could talk about a high degree of unlikeness to be able to handle that NPC - which doesn't actually change where this is going - that changing up an NPC to not be impossible or nearly impossible or very very difficult for your PCs to succeed in social interaction with is easy, whereas demanding the PCs accommodate any such NPC you come up with or "lose" ultimately forcers the players to play characters that could plausibly be played such that they could potentially accommodate any *PC*.
> 
> Thus, this notion of needing PCs primarily concerned with survival and accumulation of wealth to actually be flexible enough to deal with whatever the DM decides to throw at you is actually a weak point in most D&D games and really pushes the game into the murder hobo direction IMO.



I think that the bit I've bolded should be NPC. With that correction, I completely agree. Setting up impossible/inflexible NPCs whose reactions are pre-scripted pushes the players towards expedience - what you call _survival, accumulation of wealth and a murder-hobo direction_. And the NPCs becomes puzzles to be solved within this motivational framework.



Imaculata said:


> I think a better comparison here would be to say that not every npc can be swayed to take any position or reveal any kind of information. There are limits, just as combat has limits regarding what you can do. Some monsters are immune to fire, just as some npc's are reluctant to give up certain bits of information, or to betray certain allies. In the case of the Burgomaster, he had one line that they could not cross, and they crossed it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It is important that your players know what they're up for, so they can make smarter choices.



The difference between the unswayable NPC and the monster that is immune to fire is captured by FrogReaver. Having to find a way of defeating a monster without using fire is an optimisation problem. But having to make friends with a NPC whose goals you oppose is about compromising your principles. Hence this sort of rigidity in establishing and narrating NPCs pushes the game towards expedient play.

The same thing is present in the idea of making "smarter choices". _Smarter_ here means expedient. What about making _passionate_ choices?


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> In this case, sure maybe the PCs won't make it through the sewers, maybe they will....so it's not the outcome that's predetermined, just the fact that any other avenue of entry to the castle is unavailable, leaving only one means. It's the sewers for them, and nothing else. That's definitely pretty railroady in my book.
> 
> Sure, they could go into the sewers and then fight the monster they find there, or sneak past it, or somehow bribe it......there are still options, potentially. Unless the DM decides, no this thing can't be bribed in any way, and it has tremorsense, so you can't sneak past it, even if you're invisible, it doesn't speak common, so you can't reason with it....and so on.



But sometimes the fiction removes those choices.  It makes perfect sense for the King who is strong in strategy and tactics, and has a 20th level wizard at his disposal, to ward the castle against teleporting in, passing through the walls via magic, flying in, setting up the entrances and windows to reveal invisible creatures and objects, etc.  Between the two of them, they've set up appropriate defenses for their means, but forgot the sewers.

It's not railroading to have NPCs use the means at their disposal to defend the castle from entry that they do not approve of, even if that leaves the available options of entry at one.  And even if the PCs don't discover these defenses until it's too late.  I would presume that most of these things could be found out by subtle questioning of the locals, so it would be on the players if they didn't investigate thoroughly before trying to gain entry.

Now, that still does not leave out creativeness.  If the players had their PCs wait for someone who works in the castle to leave and wanted to risk bribing the NPC to deface the anti-teleportation runes or something, allowing the party to teleport in, that would be something that could potentially work as another avenue of entry.  Of course, they run the risk of that NPC not wanting to risk his or her life and going to the king hoping for a reward, putting the PCs in a worse position.  But that's what this game is all about.  It's those sorts of things that make the game really interesting.


----------



## iserith

prabe said:


> This is fair, I think. There might be varying amounts of railroading a given player is willing to tolerate, though, and it might be easier for a more linear adventure to be (or at least seem to be) a railroad.




I think like many terms used in RPGs, its meaning has suffered from a great deal of drift to make it basically meaningless at this point. Kind of like "metagaming." Ask 10 different people what it means and you're likely to get 10 different answers.

I did some quick Googling and found a post that I think is right on this issue. (And though I'm loathe to post it given my past interactions with the writer, when someone is right, they are right, and I try not to let my personal views get in the way, even if I don't always succeed at that.)


----------



## FrozenNorth

Ovinomancer said:


> My details are rich and full but aren't presented as red herrings.  I do not believe that red herrings add verisimilitude in an RPG because they're placed intentionally by the GM to confuse and the real world does not do this.



I never consider details red herrings.  Even if I don’t have a use for them, a sufficiently clever player might.


----------



## prabe

iserith said:


> I think like many terms used in RPGs, its meaning has suffered from a great deal of drift to make it basically meaningless at this point. Kind of like "metagaming." Ask 10 different people what it means and you're likely to get 10 different answers.
> 
> I did some quick Googling and found a post that I think is right on this issue. (And though I'm loathe to post it given my past interactions with the writer, when someone is right, they are right, and I try not to let my personal views get in the way, even if I don't always succeed at that.)




Again, I don't think we're disagreeing here. I agree that it gets overused and misused, and that you'll get different definitions from different people, but I think there will be a lot of people who will describe a very linear adventure as "a railroad" even if the GM (or adventure) never overrides player/character choice (which I think that latter is the definition you used above, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).


----------



## FrozenNorth

Ovinomancer said:


> The discussion is premised on this detail being present because it does matter to play -- ie, the presentation of the Captain's feelings about orphanages was presented in a case where that detail mattered to play.  It's fairly obvious that if orphanages don't come up in play, this detail of the Captain will also not come up in play.  That's uninteresting to discuss.  The discussion, then, is about how this works when it does matter to play -- when this detail is important.
> 
> I think this is a poor detail to follow for this discussion because it is contrived and was presented more as a counter to a premise rather than a fully coherent play example on it's own, so it's pretty flawed for the purposes of discussion.  However, it was followed and the core assumption of following it is that it has impacted play.  We're past the point where it might not come up -- it has come up, so how does that work.
> 
> Also, if it doesn't come up, then it's not a great example of prep that helps the GM play an NPC more fully because it's an irrelevant detail.



It doesn’t feel like your answering my questions.  Both the details “Captain of the guard feels strongly against burning orphans” and there “There exists an orphanage that the PCs could burn down” are details that could reasonably come into play because of the PCs approach to challenges in the game, without being the only or even an obvious solution.

What am I missing from your perspective?


----------



## iserith

prabe said:


> Again, I don't think we're disagreeing here. I agree that it gets overused and misused, and that you'll get different definitions from different people, but I think there will be a lot of people who will describe a very linear adventure as "a railroad" even if the GM (or adventure) never overrides player/character choice (which I think that latter is the definition you used above, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).




Yeah, people are free to be wrong.


----------



## pemerton

Fanaelialae said:


> I don't see it as being much different from having an ancient red dragon who will attack if she catches the PCs trying to steal anything from her hoard. Is there anyone who considers that unfair?





Fanaelialae said:


> Let's say the players notice a sleeping dragon while exploring a series of caves. They walk over to the dragon, waking it, and demand its hoard. Without a roll, the dragon declines the request. Have the players been railroaded? I think not.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't see how that has anything to do with railroading. It's railroading in the same sense that putting walls in your dungeon is railroading.





Fenris-77 said:


> Let's set aside for the moment the conversational equivalent of the moon arrow, which includes things like asking the dragon to give you his horde for no reason, or asking an implacable and evil foe to start putting flowers in the barrels of guns. Before we set those examples aside, it's worth noting that they are already different from the chasm jump in one important respect - the _rules_ do not say the action is impossible, and there is thus no rules-mandated failure state. We have moved into the realm of ultimate power - DM fiat. For the most part, those extremely unlikely examples we are setting aside are not impossible due to the rules, but rather for reasons that might be branded common sense - Dragons do not generally give away their hordes. I would submit that this is still broadly similar to the chasm jump though, as most players should realize that its not going to happen on a simple ask, no matter how charming you are, and I don't think that's really an example of an intractable NPC either.



In many, perhaps most, D&D games, a big part of the game is _gathering treasure by using player-side resources to overcome obstacles_. That's why talking a dragon out of its horde is not a feasible action declaration.

In a game with a different premise - eg Cortex+ Heroic - suddenly talking a dragon out of its horde becomes quite feasible. In that system there is no resource or resolution difference between fighting and talking - the difference is purely in the fiction - and winning a treasure is just adding another trait to your PC sheet. I haven't had a dragon talked out of its treasure in that system, but I have had a PC talk the dark elves at the bottom of a dungeon out of their treasure. It was pretty amusing at the time - the trickster PC escaping with the treasure while the other PCs were locked in battle with a group of dark elves.

Are walls in dungeons railroading? Often not - they frame the challenge. The players expect them, and have them narrated to them _in advance of action declarations_. They are part of the framing and provide the expected ground for action resolution. _Are secret doors railroading? _It depends on the details, but they can be.

Shift the context slightly: can walls and secret doors be railroading in an urban intrigue adventure? Absolutely! Because in that sort of adventure - which doesn't have the exploration-and-map-every-square aspect of a classic dungeon - narrating walls, secret doors etc can essentially become a tool that the GM uses to shape all transitions from scene to scene, block certain approaches to resolution, etc.



Fenris-77 said:


> So intractable only really applies up to the point where the NPC's motivation to accede to a request overcomes their natural reluctance to follow the rules, or to put it another way, it applies until the fictional frame is shifted enough that their intractable trait is no longer the primary objection. In addition to reframing to overcome objections, there is also the idea of leverage, which comes into play much more strongly in the case of neutral or hostile NPCs. The easy example there is that fear for one's life is leverage that can overcome a lot of seemingly intractable character traits, but also in the mix are fear of embarrassment, greed, threats to cherished possessions/people, the prospect of advancement, appeals to authority, and a bunch of other things.
> 
> Given the rather long list of methods the PCs might use to circumvent, modify, or otherwise overcome even the most intractable NPC, I don't think it makes a lot of sense for the DM to rule by fiat that the action is impossible.





Fanaelialae said:


> I certainly agree that if you can come up with a clever way to circumvent an intractable trait, then success becomes a possibility.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> When I was speaking of auto-failure, I wasn't including all possibilities. Just the ones that try to overcome the trait directly. If you try to convince the baron to do what you want by insulting him, you'll fail. Of course, insulting someone is rarely a good way to get someone to do what you want.



Re the last sentence: bullies use that particular technique all the time. And there's plenty of them in the world!

On the bigger picture: focusing on _leverage_ and ono _clever ways to circumvent_ encourages expedient play. @FrogReaver already made this point.

What about _passionate_ play? I remember when I ran Bastion of Broken Souls (mechanically adapted to RM and integrated into an ongoing campaign): I ignored all the stuff in the module that said (in effect) the only way to deal with this NPC is to fight him/her. In one case there was an angel who was a living lock to the gate the PCs wanted to pass through: they could only open the gate by killing the angel. The PCs didn't want to _fight _the angel. One of the PCs, through an impassioned oration (as reflected in strong checks using the RM social resolution framework, which is not that sophisticated), persuaded the angel that the only way for her to fulfill her duty was to allow the PC to kill her. Which he then did. It was both more dramatic and more tragic than a PC-vs-angel fight. The fact that the module writer forbade it in his text just tells me that either (i) he doesn't have a very good eye for drama or (ii) he thinks that the game will break down if it drifts away from expedient play, in which NPCs are just obstacles and/or puzzles.

But expedient play will never really resemble the source fiction, because very little of the source fiction is about expedient characters. Certainly not LotR. And not REH Conan (despite the occasional assertion one sees to the contrary.)


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrozenNorth said:


> I never consider details red herrings.  Even if I don’t have a use for them, a sufficiently clever player might.



The author of the post I was discussing has cheerfully agreed he intended red herrings.  What you mean wasn't even on my mind.  However, 8ntroducing extraneous details has a point where it goes from interesting flavor that might spur play to acting as chaff.  I strive to stay on the former side of things.


----------



## hawkeyefan

iserith said:


> Right, but you also said "I don’t know how anyone can really disagree that when a GM removes options available to the PCs to resolve an obstacle, things become more of a railroad. It seems self evident." I think you have the right of this in the post to which I'm responding, but I disagree with this part here.





Fair enough. I don’t want to get into a semantic disagreement because I feel we’re largely in agreement. I’ll only clarify that what I was visualizing with that comment was something like a flowchart with many branches, and then seeing as most of those branches  dead end, leaving only one actual path 
forward.



iserith said:


> It has more to do in my view with co-opting or negating players choices, sometimes hiding it behind the illusion of choice. The DM presents X, Y, and Z as paths. The players choose Y. The DM presents X anyway. That's railroading. Constraints on particular decisions because of the fictional context isn't the same thing, even if it's constrained down to just the one choice.
> 
> I don't view this as a spectrum. You're either railroading or you're not. Now, an adventure may be more linear and linearity could probably be described as being on a spectrum, but that's not the same as railroading.




I’m looking at the encounter level or session level perhaps, not at an adventure or campaign level. I don’t consider one instance of railroading to apply to an entire campaign. 

More instances of it makes a game more of a railroad. Fewer instances make it less so.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> But sometimes the fiction removes those choices.  It makes perfect sense for the King who is strong in strategy and tactics, and has a 20th level wizard at his disposal, to ward the castle against teleporting in, passing through the walls via magic, flying in, setting up the entrances and windows to reveal invisible creatures and objects, etc.  Between the two of them, they've set up appropriate defenses for their means, but forgot the sewers.
> 
> It's not railroading to have NPCs use the means at their disposal to defend the castle from entry that they do not approve of, even if that leaves the available options of entry at one.  And even if the PCs don't discover these defenses until it's too late.  I would presume that most of these things could be found out by subtle questioning of the locals, so it would be on the players if they didn't investigate thoroughly before trying to gain entry.
> 
> Now, that still does not leave out creativeness.  If the players had their PCs wait for someone who works in the castle to leave and wanted to risk bribing the NPC to deface the anti-teleportation runes or something, allowing the party to teleport in, that would be something that could potentially work as another avenue of entry.  Of course, they run the risk of that NPC not wanting to risk his or her life and going to the king hoping for a reward, putting the PCs in a worse position.  But that's what this game is all about.  It's those sorts of things that make the game really interesting.




You’re missing the “no matter what” requirement. If there are still multiple paths available....convincing someone inside the castle to disrupt the wards, finding an equally powerful wizard who is friendly to the PCs to thwart the opposing wizard, etc....then it’s not a problem. 

All you’ve done in your example is make the obstacles harder. That in and of itself isn’t a problem.

But if the PCs watch the folks who come and go and try to find someone who may help them disrupt the defenses, and the only NPC they find is the baron’s nephew and would never agree to that no matter what....then we start drifting into questionable territory.


----------



## FrozenNorth

hawkeyefan said:


> DM SAYS NO!
> 
> Not allowing the PCs to convince the captain no matter what would be a bad decision in this case. What if the PCs show him an orphan and they then dispel its shapechanging ability, revealing its true form as an imp. Still not believing? What if we show him the cultist's journal, swiped from his nightstand when the party rogue scouted the place out....the journal clearly details the cultist's plan. No? Still not convinced? Man you love orphanages even to a fault.
> 
> You're shooting down their plan before they even have a chance to see if it will work. There are several points where the DM could make a different choice that totally shifts how this may play out.



Thank you.  At least I can better understand your position.  However, with all due respect, both the OP example and Maxperson’s example are more akin to the situation where the characters meet the Captain empty-handed and expect a high Persuasion roll to carry the day.


----------



## hawkeyefan

FrozenNorth said:


> Thank you.  At least I can better understand your position.  However, with all due respect, both the OP example and Maxperson’s example are more akin to the situation where the characters meet the Captain empty-handed and expect a high Persuasion roll to carry the day.




Well, the OP is actually unclear, I think. We don’t really know what was being negotiated or why, or what either party was offering. All we know is things were going reasonably well, and that was then interrupted by the PC who insulted the baron.

The orphanage scenario....well, it was what it was.

When the DM is responsible for the introduction of the obstacles, the NPCs who can either help or hinder PC efforts, the traits of those NPCs that determine the likelihood of their willingness to help or not, and also the chances of any possible solution the PCs come up with.....that’s just a lot on the DM.

Many are saying that it’s best if the DM has all this stuff decided ahead of time. I feel the opposite...I think that committing so strongly beforehand tends to push things in bery predetermined ways. Which may be fine, but for me is not preferable in most cases.


----------



## FrozenNorth

Ovinomancer said:


> The author of the post I was discussing has cheerfully agreed he intended red herrings.  What you mean wasn't even on my mind.  However, 8ntroducing extraneous details has a point where it goes from interesting flavor that might spur play to acting as chaff.  I strive to stay on the former side of things.



I’m not disagreeing with you.  However, my point was that even if Lanefan as the DM may include a detail as a “red herring”, that doesn’t make it one in practice, as any of his players could take a previously established red herring and make it relevant to the adventure.

In my game last night, the players broke into a courthouse and found themselves in the records room.  The comfortable armchairs I put in the room were a red herring up until one of the players jammed it against the door to prevent the guards from entering.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> Many are saying that it’s best if the DM has all this stuff decided ahead of time. I feel the opposite...I think that committing so strongly beforehand tends to push things in bery predetermined ways. Which may be fine, but for me is not preferable in most cases.




I don't need everything decided, and I don't expect an NPC to be intractable about everything; all I want is a fixed star or two I can use to navigate the character. So (hearkening way back to the beginning example, ish) the Baron might be reasonable and willing to negotiate unless his fitness to rule is questioned. If the PCs learned before the audience with him that the Baron was ... sensitive, and had reason to believe he was unfit to rule, but thought negotiating with him was the best course of action, it might make for interesting roleplaying.

Or, one of the characters could just push that Big Red Button, just to see what would happen. PCs gotta PC.


----------



## BookBarbarian

prabe said:


> Again, I don't think we're disagreeing here. I agree that it gets overused and misused, and that you'll get different definitions from different people, but I think there will be a lot of people who will describe a very linear adventure as "a railroad" even if the GM (or adventure) never overrides player/character choice (which I think that latter is the definition you used above, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).



In like to describe those types of adventures as "On Rails" (A term I have heard used to describe video games)

Just cause the tracks are laid out for doesn't mean you have to stay on them though. I sure enjoy some off-roading.


----------



## FrogReaver

BookBarbarian said:


> In like to describe those types of adventures as "On Rails" (A term I have heard used to describe video games)
> 
> Just cause the tracks are laid out for doesn't mean you have to stay on them though. I sure enjoy some off-roading.




yea I think the notion of being on rails and being railroaded are quite different.

an on rails adventure with player buy-in to be on those rails is fine. An on rails adventure without player buy-in requires railroading to keep on the rails.


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> an on rails adventure with player buy-in to be on those rails is fine. An on rails adventure without player buy-in requires railroading to keep on the rails.




I don't doubt that if the players are bought-in, an on-rails adventure can be fine, but the players need to stay bought-in. The GM needs to be careful that there aren't any ... hidden junctions, or logic gaps, where the players can see a way through other than the rails. If those show up, the player buy-in might go away. I know this, because I'm one of those players who sees logic gaps in adventures and tries to run through them, not out of any desire to break an adventure, but because I'm trying to wrong-foot whatever we're supposed to be trying to fight.


----------



## Fanaelialae

pemerton said:


> This is very different from my own experience. An approach to play in which the details of the situation are established by the GM as part of responsive framing and in an interplay with action declaration and resolution creates a very high degree of immersion and vibrant, evocative fiction. To give a concrete example: the giant steading in my Cortex+ game that I posted about uphtread was more “real” and vibrant in play than the G1 steading that it was inspired by – precisely because the description (including its smell, its wolves, the barn with the giant oxen, etc) were all established as part of the dynamics of play rather than being narrated unilaterally by the GM from a pre-authored description.



Nothing wrong with different preferences. 

No offense intended, but I don't recall your post about the giant steading, and I'm not going to dig it up. It sounds though like you had the players invent some of the details for you (akin to how DungeonWorld is meant to be played).

Nothing wrong with that. PbA games are great IMO. I actually was a Kickstarter backer for DW. I can definitely see how having your players add details to your world would help to immerse everyone through shared world building. 

My players however, don't enjoy it in all contexts. They're happy to cooperate if the details pertain to their character. Describing their character's best friend or their favorite tavern in the town they grew up in. 

They're significantly less keen on sharing the world building when it's something their characters don't have a connection with. That's the sort of thing that they want to discover and explore through their actions and my descriptions. They really enjoy discovery in this particular context.



> Putting these posts together, I gather than when you refer to _the world_ and _my game world_, you mean something like “the stuff that’s written down in the GM’s notes” together with “the stuff that the GM extrapolates in imagination from his/her notes”.
> 
> And you seem to be saying that that stuff includes _outcomes of action resolution_ – that is, the GM’s predetermination, or decision on the spot by extrapolation, about what NPCs will or won’t do when sincere action declarations are made with the goal of influencing those NPCs.
> 
> That’s very different from how I run my games (be those D&D or other systems).




I don't really see it as outcomes of action resolutions. I see it as a description of characteristics that help determine logical outcomes. 

It's akin to how a door might be made of wood, iron, or elemental ice. A wood door will burn, but it won't rust. Iron will rust, but producing a flame hot enough to melt it would not be easy. Elemental ice might neither burn nor rust, so a different means must be found if one wishes to pass through it.

Similarly, a truly honorable guard isn't going to take a bribe regardless of how persuasive you are. However, appeals to his honor will be very effective. Of course, that trait has no bearing on his gullibility (just as an example).



> I’m not sure what you mean here by _having to deal with_.
> 
> The way I see it is this: the players encounter the baron. In the ensuing interaction, the players try and influence the baron. The GM decides – based on extrapolation from his/her notes – that as a result of one aspect of that attempt (eg the insult) the baron is now offended and wants to punish the PCs.
> 
> What has happened there is that the scene has transitioned from one of _negotiation_ to one of _coping with a threat of punishment_ simply by way of GM decision-making. The players didn’t want the situation to transition that way, but the GM decided anyway without the use of any action resolution framework that would determine whose preference about the fiction should prevail.
> 
> That is a _very high_ degree of control exerted by the GM over the unfolding of the ingame situation



Whereas I see it as being similar to jumping off a cliff. Ideally, the character should be aware of the cliff, rather than it being some sort of gotcha while stumbling around in the dark. However, once they do fall, gravity takes over. I see that as a perfectly normal degree of control, and nothing more than perfectly normal event resolution. 

If the baron's trait is that he has a fragile ego, then he will become angry if insulted. Obviously, that might not apply to all insults. A clever enough phrasing might allow you to make a insult sound like a compliment to him, in which case he'd be pleased rather than angry. 

However, he doesn't suddenly lose his fragile ego just because the players decided to be rude towards him. I see nothing wrong with that.



> This goes right back to @FrogReaver’s point that I pick up just below, and my response is very similar (and consistent with what I’ve already been saying in this post): _why is the GM including this NPC in the scene_, given that the players (for whatever reason) regard it as important to burn down the orphanage?
> 
> The GM could include a guard captain with whatever motivations. Or could have the strength of the captain’s feelings be established _as an outcome of resolution_ rather than _as an input into resolution_. So why include this particular captain? What effect is it meant to have on the play experience?
> 
> I think that the bit I've bolded should be NPC. With that correction, I completely agree. Setting up impossible/inflexible NPCs whose reactions are pre-scripted pushes the players towards expedience - what you call _survival, accumulation of wealth and a murder-hobo direction_. And the NPCs becomes puzzles to be solved within this motivational framework.
> 
> The difference between the unswayable NPC and the monster that is immune to fire is captured by FrogReaver. Having to find a way of defeating a monster without using fire is an optimisation problem. But having to make friends with a NPC whose goals you oppose is about compromising your principles. Hence this sort of rigidity in establishing and narrating NPCs pushes the game towards expedient play.
> 
> The same thing is present in the idea of making "smarter choices". _Smarter_ here means expedient. What about making _passionate_ choices?



Why do you have to make friends with the baron? You don't, to the best of my knowledge. I'm fairly certain that CoS doesn't have anything in it that requires befriending the baron. I'm not even aware of a requirement to meet him.

The players could have ignored the baron and continued on their adventures. They could have met with him, decided he's insane, and then left and plotted to overthrow him. Instead, a single player decided to provoke the baron while in his seat of power. 

Even that could have been saved, IMO. The other characters could have salvaged the situation by apologizing on behalf of the rude character, claiming that he's their village idiot but quite capable with a blade, and then telling him to wait outside until the grownups are done talking. Or they could have stood their ground together and probably killed the baron and his troops. 

Instead, one guy tried to hold the baron hostage and two PCs decided they wanted no part of this. We all know the old adage "never split the party" but they did, despite all being physically present in the same space.

I don't see what the DM did as heavy handed. Unless they were trying to react to the scenario and the DM wouldn't let them, but that doesn't sound remotely like what was described, to me.



pemerton said:


> In many, perhaps most, D&D games, a big part of the game is _gathering treasure by using player-side resources to overcome obstacles_. That's why talking a dragon out of its horde is not a feasible action declaration.
> 
> In a game with a different premise - eg Cortex+ Heroic - suddenly talking a dragon out of its horde becomes quite feasible. In that system there is no resource or resolution difference between fighting and talking - the difference is purely in the fiction - and winning a treasure is just adding another trait to your PC sheet. I haven't had a dragon talked out of its treasure in that system, but I have had a PC talk the dark elves at the bottom of a dungeon out of their treasure. It was pretty amusing at the time - the trickster PC escaping with the treasure while the other PCs were locked in battle with a group of dark elves.
> 
> Are walls in dungeons railroading? Often not - they frame the challenge. The players expect them, and have them narrated to them _in advance of action declarations_. They are part of the framing and provide the expected ground for action resolution. _Are secret doors railroading? _It depends on the details, but they can be.
> 
> Shift the context slightly: can walls and secret doors be railroading in an urban intrigue adventure? Absolutely! Because in that sort of adventure - which doesn't have the exploration-and-map-every-square aspect of a classic dungeon - narrating walls, secret doors etc can essentially become a tool that the GM uses to shape all transitions from scene to scene, block certain approaches to resolution, etc.



I disagree. The reason that dragons don't just give you their treasure isn't because it would be unbalanced. I give XP regardless of how players overcome an encounter. Kill the dragon, get the XP. Overcome the dragon by other means (talking to it) and you get the same XP. Given that, it wouldn't be unreasonable to extrapolate that if you kill the dragon you get its treasure and if you overcome it some other way you still get the treasure. I have no issue with the party tricking the dragon somehow, like luring it away and then making off with the hoard.

No, the reason that a dragon can't simply be convinced to give you its hoard is because dragons are avaricious and love treasure. It's like making a persuasion check to have a loving parent let you take their child away from them. Maybe it might work in some truly extreme circumstances (Zeus comes down from the heavens and demands the dragon's treasure, or the child will die if they remain with the parent). 

However, when I say an NPC won't do something I don't mean it's 100% impossible. If you beat down the dragon and give it a choice between death or losing its hoard, it will most likely choose to live another day. A few strange humans walking into it's lair and threatening it is arguably not a good enough reason. Those humans are more likely then not going to die if they fight, as far as the dragon is concerned. It is a dragon after all, and it doesn't know that those humans happen to be player characters. 



> Re the last sentence: bullies use that particular technique all the time. And there's plenty of them in the world!
> 
> On the bigger picture: focusing on _leverage_ and ono _clever ways to circumvent_ encourages expedient play. @FrogReaver already made this point.
> 
> What about _passionate_ play? I remember when I ran Bastion of Broken Souls (mechanically adapted to RM and integrated into an ongoing campaign): I ignored all the stuff in the module that said (in effect) the only way to deal with this NPC is to fight him/her. In one case there was an angel who was a living lock to the gate the PCs wanted to pass through: they could only open the gate by killing the angel. The PCs didn't want to _fight _the angel. One of the PCs, through an impassioned oration (as reflected in strong checks using the RM social resolution framework, which is not that sophisticated), persuaded the angel that the only way for her to fulfill her duty was to allow the PC to kill her. Which he then did. It was both more dramatic and more tragic than a PC-vs-angel fight. The fact that the module writer forbade it in his text just tells me that either (i) he doesn't have a very good eye for drama or (ii) he thinks that the game will break down if it drifts away from expedient play, in which NPCs are just obstacles and/or puzzles.
> 
> But expedient play will never really resemble the source fiction, because very little of the source fiction is about expedient characters. Certainly not LotR. And not REH Conan (despite the occasional assertion one sees to the contrary.)



Yeah, a trait like "will not let the PCs pass without a fight" is generally a bad trait unless the creature is mind controlled (or something) and literally has to do it.

Why won't it let them pass without a fight? Does it seemk death in glorious combat? Is it simply because it promised to do so to someone who abandoned it eons ago? Is it protecting someone or something?

Each of those possibilities will lead to different potential outcomes. For example, in the abandonment example, if the PCs convince it that it was abandoned, it could let them pass after realizing its duty is pointless. If it is protecting something, it will probably not less them pass unless they can convince it that they can protect it better. In the case of seeking glorious death, it could be quite difficult to circumvent the guardian without fighting it.

Just because something can be done badly doesn't make it bad.


----------



## Fenris-77

@pemerton - I think you might be mistaking the fact that I gave the two examples of leverage and overcoming objections for my thinking those are the only two possibilities. Playing from a place of passion and strong belief is also great, and your example of the angel is a strong example of great dramatic play. If you wanted to slot that in to my post I'd call the rhetorical performance leverage - you're appealing to the NPCs strongly held beliefs. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to attempt, and D&D has more than enough tools to make it work.

As for the dragon's horde, I would disagree with your characterization. The notion that the dragon isn't giving away it's horde has nothing to do with the possible nature of D&D as a treasure hunting game. First off, that is a common but by no means universal descriptor of D&D, and even if it were the case, it's not an idea that IMO drives a lot of the fictional framing that goes into the game, at least as we're discussing it here. That example was to illustrate that just walking up to a dragon and saying, _hey, can I have that horde?_ isn't going to work on a straight CHA check. Persuade is not mind control. I would assume that a simple roll of that sort also wouldn't talk a dragon out of it's horde in your game. Why? Because it beggars belief. It's a moon arrow. That is very different from saying it's not possible to talk a dragon out of it's horde. Of course that should be possible, just very, very difficult, and something that would need a very clever approach and probably some great roleplaying and rolling.

I would also argue that expedient play is not necessarily the same thing as expedience in the fictional framing. Expedient play, at least as far as that term describes what I was talking about,  just means choosing actions based on information and outcomes. I brought it up as way to illustrate the importance of giving the players enough information that they can make decisions. LotR isn't free of this, Pippin kneeling before Denethor is an action that lives wholly within what I was trying to describe. Pippin didn't make that decision based solely on himself as Hobbit, but also based on what he knew about Denethor and about Gondor. Hobbit's don't offer service to one another, but men of Gondor do. I don't want to belabor the examples from fiction though. Save to say that I am not limiting social interaction to calculated maneuvers, passion is in the mix. The word leverage wasn't meant to convey just the calculated manipulation of others, but also to include speaking to strongly held beliefs. Anything that you could describe as a handhold by which an NPC might be moved should be in play, the players just need to be given/acquire/figure out the information they need to determine what those handholds are.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrozenNorth said:


> I’m not disagreeing with you.  However, my point was that even if Lanefan as the DM may include a detail as a “red herring”, that doesn’t make it one in practice, as any of his players could take a previously established red herring and make it relevant to the adventure.



I don't think it's worthwhile to ignore the stated intent and methodology, which strongly indicate that things intended as red herrings will be taken as such.  Further, I don't think it's worthwhile to look a detail presented in complete isolate and imagine that a player turns this one example into something interesting.  I can imagine a different outcome.  Some else could imagine a third outcome.  In isolation, it's not illuminating of anything.

I mean, sure, a player may take a detail the GM intends as a red herring and turn it into something interesting, but how often does that happen versus the red herring acting as a red herring, especially with a GM that's intentionally placing things as red herrings?  This seems like a corner case in that regard, and corner cases aren't terribly convincing of a general claim.


> In my game last night, the players broke into a courthouse and found themselves in the records room.  The comfortable armchairs I put in the room were a red herring up until one of the players jammed it against the door to prevent the guards from entering.



I think, after that example, that another issue here is that we apparently are operating on wildly different definitions of red herring.  As in, I can't see a piece of appropriate to the scene furniture being a red herring rather than just set dressing.  Where the comfortable chairs taken by the PCs to be important to their goals, but they were not, and so the PCs wasted time investigating them until one PC decided to use a chair as a doorstop?  Because, that's the only way that your example makes sense as a red herring usefully used for something else, and that seems like a really contrived example, if so.


----------



## Lanefan

Scott Christian said:


> The side quest is interesting to me. And not to open up a can of worms by comparing fiction and RPG's, but as a GM, I have always treated them as a chapter - no more. Sometimes the repercussions of their side quest come back into play, but I try my hardest to not let it go over one session.



For me, any of this takes as long as it takes: if a side-quest adventure runs ten sessions, then so be it.  Don't matter to me. 

And yes, sometimes I can find ways later on to work elements of what at the time was a side-quest into a larger ongoing plot or story.


> To have a campaign of one long side quest - that is intriguing.



Nitpick: I think we're using the term "campaign" to mean different things.

You seem to be using the term to mean simply a series of adventures strung together.

To me, the campaign is the entire game: all the adventures, APs, side quests, and everything else that involves one DM, a continuing-if-evoloving group of characters, and a single base setting, all bundled together.  Thus my current campaign has had four (or five now?) embedded quasi-APs, many standalone adventures, several different sometimes-interweaving story arcs (some more intentional than others!), about 20 different adventuring parties as PCs reshuffle their lineups and swap in and out (and players come and go), and still has years left in it yet.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> It’s only a problem when the GM has made it so that specific paths are simply never going to work. This NPC cannot be reasoned with, _no matter what_, or this door cannot be opened, _no matter what_, or this trap cannot be disarmed, _no matter what_.
> 
> Creating different routes to success, and placing different degrees of difficulty on those routes is not railroading....it’s creating meaningful decision points.
> 
> “We can storm the gate and it’ll be a tough fight, but once we clear the guards we’ll have a direct route to the keep. Or we can traverse the sewers, it’ll take longer and we’ve heard rumors of some creature living there, but we’ll arrive near the keep unnoticed.”



OK, but what about "We can try to storm the gate, but that's Sir Ancelyn's shield I see on that guard captain; and if that's really Sir Ancelyn carrying it all we're gonna do is die real fast - he could beat us all with both hands tied behind his back; and rumour has it he never sleeps or eats."

In other words, while the gate's an option it's flagged as being extremely dangerous and-or suicidal to try.  Railroad?



> I’ll add this caveat....I do this from time to time. I place the PCs in a situation where there is one way out. Every now and then, I think it’s okay to do this....I just tend to help them recognize this may be the situation instead of letting them deliberate multiple options that I know won’t work. I don’t see the value in wasting time discussing options that are not truly available. I don’t do this often...I prefer at least one alternative path to success for any obstacle/encounter.



Where I'm quite happy to let 'em deliberate multiple options and maybe try a few even if I-as-DM know all but one of those options are doomed to failure, as that's what would most likely happen were the situation real.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> The difference between the unswayable NPC and the monster that is immune to fire is captured by FrogReaver. Having to find a way of defeating a monster without using fire is an optimisation problem. But having to make friends with a NPC whose goals you oppose is about compromising your principles. Hence this sort of rigidity in establishing and narrating NPCs pushes the game towards expedient play.
> 
> The same thing is present in the idea of making "smarter choices". _Smarter_ here means expedient. What about making _passionate_ choices?



Thing is, often the choice between the smart move and the right move is more fraught than any other choice in the situation. Happens a lot in real life too.

Forcing the smart option and the right option to be the same e.g. setting it up such that making friends with the NPC doesn't violate the PC's principles, denies the opportunity to roleplay that smart-v-right decision.


----------



## prabe

Lanefan said:


> Thing is, often the choice between the smart move and the right move is more fraught than any other choice in the situation. Happens a lot in real life too.
> 
> Forcing the smart option and the right option to be the same e.g. setting it up such that making friends with the NPC doesn't violate the PC's principles, denies the opportunity to roleplay that smart-v-right decision.




I don't deny any of this, but there are tables that won't like this kind of smart-versus-right choice--or at least won't like too much of it--because they play TRPGs for the chance to (pretend to) be heroes. Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, doesn't mean anyone's table is wrong for liking it, just means the GM should know their audience (and one can consider the GM part of the audience, here--I do).


----------



## Lanefan

FrozenNorth said:


> I’m not disagreeing with you.  However, my point was that even if Lanefan as the DM may include a detail as a “red herring”, that doesn’t make it one in practice, as any of his players could take a previously established red herring and make it relevant to the adventure.



Or, as has happened to me a few times in the past, made the red herring itself the adventure or focus while abandoning the original one.

In my example of ye olde Cheapside Way, one of the buildings on the street is an abandoned private residence, put there as a diversionary red herring (i.e. it's the perfect set-up for a guildhouse but it isn't in fact the guildhouse at all).  If the PCs somehow learn it's abandoned it wouldn't surprise me at all were they to, for example, abandon (or greatly delay) their work against the Assassins and focus instead on turning that old residence into their party's home base.

So now, a red herring has suddenly become not so red after all.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Lanefan said:


> Or, as has happened to me a few times in the past, made the red herring itself the adventure or focus while abandoning the original one.
> 
> In my example of ye olde Cheapside Way, one of the buildings on the street is an abandoned private residence, put there as a diversionary red herring (i.e. it's the perfect set-up for a guildhouse but it isn't in fact the guildhouse at all).  If the PCs somehow learn it's abandoned it wouldn't surprise me at all were they to, for example, abandon (or greatly delay) their work against the Assassins and focus instead on turning that old residence into their party's home base.
> 
> So now, a red herring has suddenly become not so red after all.



No, that's stll a red herring.  It just was more entertaining than their goal.  Red herrings are supposed to be attractive false leads, after all.

I also am not terribly sure that having players abandon dealing with assassins to squat an abondoned house is super common.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> OK, but what about "We can try to storm the gate, but that's Sir Ancelyn's shield I see on that guard captain; and if that's really Sir Ancelyn carrying it all we're gonna do is die real fast - he could beat us all with both hands tied behind his back; and rumour has it he never sleeps or eats."
> 
> In other words, while the gate's an option it's flagged as being extremely dangerous and-or suicidal to try.  Railroad?




Well, the DM’s the one who decided to put that NPC at the gate. To what purpose?



Lanefan said:


> Where I'm quite happy to let 'em deliberate multiple options and maybe try a few even if I-as-DM know all but one of those options are doomed to failure, as that's what would most likely happen were the situation real.




That’s fine. It sounds like a waste of precious game time to me, but preferences vary of course.


----------



## Imaculata

pemerton said:


> The difference between the unswayable NPC and the monster that is immune to fire is captured by FrogReaver. Having to find a way of defeating a monster without using fire is an optimisation problem. But having to make friends with a NPC whose goals you oppose is about compromising your principles. Hence this sort of rigidity in establishing and narrating NPCs pushes the game towards expedient play.




That seems like a very selective example though. Does every NPC who has opposing goals require compromising your principles? I don't think so. I think a better comparison might be a Rust Monster. You're (probably) not going to have a ton of Rust Monsters in your campaign, but when the players encounter one there is just this one thing they need to be weary of. The Baron is quite similar. Despite him being evil, mad and paranoid, you could probably talk to him just fine. But there is this one thing you need to be weary of, and that is that you should not question the legitimacy of his rule.

But like the Rust Monster, such encounters are only fair if the threat is foreshadowed. Having your precious equipment suddenly be reduced to a pile of dust is no fun, just as suddenly being placed in irons for saying the wrong thing isn't much fun. It can be an unfair trap if handled incorrectly, or an interesting challenge if properly foreshadowed.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> Well, the DM’s the one who decided to put that NPC at the gate. To what purpose?




Lots of purposes.  Maybe that gate is going to be busy and the prince will be riding through, so Sir Ancelyn is there just in case the heir needs him.  Maybe the King has 7 knights and tonight is Sir Ancelyn's turn in the rotation.  Tomorrow night will be Sir Solid butwecantakem.  There are a great many reasons that knight might be there.



> That’s fine. It sounds like a waste of precious game time to me, but preferences vary of course.



A few weeks ago my group encountered a town where a vengeful ghost was coming back once every 7 days and going after townsfolk that she felt slighted her.  The players debated about 10 different possible solutions.  3 of which would have worked outright.  They chose poorly.  It's not my job to stop them and let them know which ideas will work.  I'm there to adjudicate their actions.


----------



## Campbell

@Maxperson 

I am not personally looking for the fictional causes. Why design the scenario that way? Why choose that particular fiction out of a plethora of possible fictions?


----------



## Scott Christian

pemerton said:


> This whole approach seems to start from a different assumption about play from my normal one. You seem to be envisaging a _main storyline_ that the GM is presenting/narrating, and that as part of that main storyline certain events “have” to take place, and have to resolve within a certain range of parameters. Hence these ideas like _pivotal bad guys_ and _pivotal NPCs_. As you present those notions, the status of being “pivotal” seems to be the result of a choice made by the GM in advance of play.




Not exactly. They are pivotal because of the _players' _choices. They are the ones that made them important. Outside of the first session to introduce the conflict, it's the players that determine the course. But, eventually they need to meet important people or face important bad guys. In my example, maybe it's not the Captain of the guards that hires them, but the thieves' guild leader or someone in a royal court or one of the missing guards' spouses. 

I mean, adventures have literal "hooks" written in them so players follow a storyline (D&D). If you want to discuss other games, then all is great. If you want to play a game where your tenth level fighter wants to grow tomatoes, peppers, onion and garlic to be a salsa king, great. But in my experience most D&D games are not like that. They try to tell a heroic/tragic story that revolves around evil/good, monsters/magic, alliances/enemies. 

So you are partially right, pivotal people, places, etc. _do_ have to take place. But not all of them. And not in any order. That is why it takes a boatload of prep-work to create a cohesive and fluid story - because you have characters that don't follow the script.   But that same thing also makes it fun!


----------



## Scott Christian

Lanefan said:


> Nitpick: I think we're using the term "campaign" to mean different things.
> 
> You seem to be using the term to mean simply a series of adventures strung together.
> 
> To me, the campaign is the entire game: all the adventures, APs, side quests, and everything else that involves one DM, a continuing-if-evoloving group of characters, and a single base setting, all bundled together. Thus my current campaign has had four (or five now?) embedded quasi-APs, many standalone adventures, several different sometimes-interweaving story arcs (some more intentional than others!), about 20 different adventuring parties as PCs reshuffle their lineups and swap in and out (and players come and go), and still has years left in it yet.



You are correct. I look at a campaign not as stories in a world, but a story in a world. That story could definitely include side-quests, evolving characters, and even new characters (new players join the table or someone wants to remake a character or a character dies). But 20 different adventuring parties and five adventure paths of different storylines doesn't fit my definition. But your table sounds like a lot of fun! Sorry for any confusion.


----------



## FrozenNorth

prabe said:


> I don't deny any of this, but there are tables that won't like this kind of smart-versus-right choice--or at least won't like too much of it--because they play TRPGs for the chance to (pretend to) be heroes. Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, doesn't mean anyone's table is wrong for liking it, just means the GM should know their audience (and one can consider the GM part of the audience, here--I do).



That is a legitimate criticism, of Curse of Strahd in particular, where often the ethos is that Dark Powers will conspire to screw you out of your few victories.


----------



## prabe

FrozenNorth said:


> That is a legitimate criticism, of Curse of Strahd in particular, where often the ethos is that Dark Powers will conspire to screw you out of your few victories.




That's been my understanding of Ravenloft since it first impinged on my awareness in the early nineties, and that's why I've never been interested in anything set there.


----------



## MGibster

Cambell said:
			
		

> I am not personally looking for the fictional causes. Why design the scenario that way? Why choose that particular fiction out of a plethora of possible fictions?




To make things a little more interesting than a frontal assault to batter down the front gate?  Or perhaps to offer other PCs the opportunity to use their skills and abilities to get into the city.  The Odyssey doesn't begin with the Greeks kicking down the gates of Ilium and storming the city.  Instead Odysseus hatches a clever plan that appeals to the vanity of the Trojan's to get into the city.


----------



## prabe

Campbell said:


> I am not personally looking for the fictional causes. Why design the scenario that way? Why choose that particular fiction out of a plethora of possible fictions?




Maybe it's the kind of fiction the people at that table prefer. Maybe there has been a cluster of very similar scenarios, and this is Something Different. Maybe it's just what the GM believes makes sense. Any of those works as a reason at the level you're asking about, I think.


----------



## Fenris-77

prabe said:


> I don't deny any of this, but there are tables that won't like this kind of smart-versus-right choice--or at least won't like too much of it--because they play TRPGs for the chance to (pretend to) be heroes. Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, doesn't mean anyone's table is wrong for liking it, just means the GM should know their audience (and one can consider the GM part of the audience, here--I do).



Well, I'd say yes and no to this. If you have a table where the goal is to play heroes, there will always be some tension between expediency and heroism and that's a pretty strong tool to define that heroism. The hero lets the bad guy get away in order to save the innocent, or finds ways not to kill the guardsmen who are just doing their jobs, or sacrifices riches in order to do what is right. Obviously you also need to reward the players for their heroic choices, but having to pick between the easy choice and the right choice is a fine tool for that kind of game. Without it the players don't actually get to choose to be heroes and aren't as well defined by their actions. If being a hero were easy more people would do it. 

Ravenloft is a great example of this actually. The forces of evil in Ravenloft are, generally, actively trying to corrupt the heroes and work against them. The background is super dark, and both evil and not-my-problem-ism are rampant. This allows the players to shine all the more brightly, or be eaten by the dark. I think you might enjoy it more than you think. Most of my games have at least a tinge of horror around the edges for this very reason.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> Well, I'd say yes and no to this. If you have a table where the goal is to play heroes, there will always be some tension between expediency and heroism and that's a pretty strong tool to define that heroism. The hero lets the bad guy get away in order to save the innocent, or finds ways not to kill the guardsmen who are just doing their jobs, or sacrifices riches in order to do what is right. Obviously you also need to reward the players for their heroic choices, but having to pick between the easy choice and the right choice is a fine tool for that kind of game. Without it the players don't actually get to choose to be heroes and aren't as well defined by their actions. If being a hero were easy more people would do it.
> 
> Ravenloft is a great example of this actually. The forces of evil in Ravenloft are, generally, actively trying to corrupt the heroes and work against them. The background is super dark, and both evil and not-my-problem-ism are rampant. This allows the players to shine all the more brightly, or be eaten by the dark. I think you might enjoy it more than you think. Most of my games have at least a tinge of horror around the edges for this very reason.




If the party always has to choose between, say, innocents dying and the badguy getting away, that eventually gets tiresome, though; more quickly for some people than others. It can feel like choosing how to lose, especially if there's a punishment for the character waiting no matter the choice.

My understanding of Ravenloft (going way back) from people who adored the setting, is that no on shines in Ravenloft and all choices are punished hard until the characters break. Hard pass.

I like horror, a lot,  but I find all the horror archetypes boring when used explicitly. The horror that shows up in my worlds is ... weirder than that. Gnomes who turned themselves into magical cyborgs that speak backward then forward and want nothing more than to convert all gnomes to be like them; contagious madness that turns all languages into something that gets referred to as "polyglot gibberish, and spreads to other non-language-using species, which the party found out about when a starved-lookng wolf mewed at them--and then made a noise like a kookaburra.


----------



## Fenris-77

Goodnes no, that can't be the choice all the time. Any buffet gets stale when there's only one item on it. As for Ravenloft, I've played it without breaking characters. That doesn't have to be the default state of play at all. I'd also probably suggest that either we're talking about 'horror' in different ways or we have very different definitions of what 'boring' means.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> Lots of purposes.  Maybe that gate is going to be busy and the prince will be riding through, so Sir Ancelyn is there just in case the heir needs him.  Maybe the King has 7 knights and tonight is Sir Ancelyn's turn in the rotation.  Tomorrow night will be Sir Solid butwecantakem.  There are a great many reasons that knight might be there.




No, as Campbell has pointed out....I'm not asking for the fictional justification of having the knight there. I am asking why the DM has decided to place that NPC in that location. This is something the DM has chosen to do, and he should be aware of what that choice means.

Is it to discourage the front gate as being a viable option? If so, then we're touching on what I'm talking about. If this is done as a challenge to the PCs, to make them think of another route into the castle, that's not a problem. If this is to act as a block, and then one by one the PCs find blocks for every other route they try until lo and behold they have to enter the sewers as their only option.....then it's a problem. 





Maxperson said:


> A few weeks ago my group encountered a town where a vengeful ghost was coming back once every 7 days and going after townsfolk that she felt slighted her.  The players debated about 10 different possible solutions.  3 of which would have worked outright.  They chose poorly.  It's not my job to stop them and let them know which ideas will work.  I'm there to adjudicate their actions.




If you say so. Personally, I'd probably help them winnow that list down from 10 a bit by sharing what their characters would be reasonably able to learn or intuit about the situations. 

I'm not interested in watching the players chase a bunch of false leads when we play. I'd prefer to get to the good stuff.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> Goodnes no, that can't be the choice all the time. Any buffet gets stale when there's only one item on it. As for Ravenloft, I've played it without breaking characters. That doesn't have to be the default state of play at all. I'd also probably suggest that either we're talking about 'horror' in different ways or we have very different definitions of what 'boring' means.




Sorry. I've put some time into studying Horror, the genre. The archetypes of Horror: Ghost (lingering evil), Werewolf (internal evil), Vampire (external evil), Thing (created evil). Three of those have archetypal novels: Dracula, Frankenstein, and Jeckyll and Hyde; the Ghost is harder to pin down a single archetypal novel. (Hill House is kinda recent to be the archetypal novel, but it's close). "Boring" is probably too strong, but my reaction to most horror elements is a chuckle of recognition, which is ... not what someone putting horror elements in a story or TRPG is going for. "Uninteresting" is probably closer to the mark.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Fenris-77 said:


> Goodnes no, that can't be the choice all the time. Any buffet gets stale when there's only one item on it. As for Ravenloft, I've played it without breaking characters. That doesn't have to be the default state of play at all. I'd also probably suggest that either we're talking about 'horror' in different ways or we have very different definitions of what 'boring' means.




There's also a difference between Ravenoft the setting, and Curse of Strahd, the adventure that features Castle Ravenloft. While there are elements of the old setting in the new adventure, they are by no means required. The adventure certainly leans into horror, but it is by no means some kind of cosmic horror where the heroes are doomed no matter what they do.


----------



## Fenris-77

prabe said:


> Sorry. I've put some time into studying Horror, the genre. The archetypes of Horror: Ghost (lingering evil), Werewolf (internal evil), Vampire (external evil), Thing (created evil). Three of those have archetypal novels: Dracula, Frankenstein, and Jeckyll and Hyde; the Ghost is harder to pin down a single archetypal novel. (Hill House is kinda recent to be the archetypal novel, but it's close). "Boring" is probably too strong, but my reaction to most horror elements is a chuckle of recognition, which is ... not what someone putting horror elements in a story or TRPG is going for. "Uninteresting" is probably closer to the mark.



Yeah, I wasn't really talking about the archetypes of horror. Those already inform a lot of the Monster Manual anyway, but I'd agree that taking one of those and trying to make it a centerpiece isn't that interesting. I was talking abut the common elements of horror fiction - (paraphrasing the interwebs here) it explores 'malevolent' or 'wicked' characters, deeds or phenomena. It arouses feelings of fear, shock or disgust as well as the sense of the uncanny – things are not what they seem. There is a heightened sense of the unknown and/or mysterious. These elements are present in a lot of games, I just lean into them a little harder than some people. I also tend to include some elements of body horror - gross parasites, strange conditions, pernicious poisons. Those, used somewhat sparingly and often in conjunction with expanded exhaustion rules, tend to puncture some PCs sense of invulnerability without killing them.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> Yeah, I wasn't really talking about the archetypes of horror. Those already inform a lot of the Monster Manual anyway, but I'd agree that taking one of those and trying to make it a centerpiece isn't that interesting. I was talking abut the common elements of horror fiction - (paraphrasing the interwebs here) it explores 'malevolent' or 'wicked' characters, deeds or phenomena. It arouses feelings of fear, shock or disgust as well as the sense of the uncanny – things are not what they seem. There is a heightened sense of the unknown and/or mysterious. These elements are present in a lot of games, I just lean into them a little harder than some people. I also tend to include some elements of body horror - gross parasites, strange conditions, pernicious poisons. Those, used somewhat sparingly and often in conjunction with expanded exhaustion rules, tend to puncture some PCs sense of invulnerability without killing them.




Fair enough. Yeah, the archetypes inform a lot of what people call "monsters," but as you say the archetypes themselves tend to underwhelm in play--if only because the players recognize them as horror-monsters. I think there's a space where there are elements of horror but the setting is not unrelentingly depressing. I suspect we both aim for it, but our approaches (and possibly reasons) are probably different-ish. For every arc where the PCs are dealing with contagious derangements that can reshape bodies as well as minds (in at least one instance literally pulling the skin off a corpse to walk around) I try to arrange it so there's at least one where they're doing ... more conventional D&D things. If nothing else, the "conventional D&D things" are closer to what the players expected when they joined up.


----------



## Fenris-77

Yup, if you lean in too hard it looses it's punch for sure. I often use the PCs base of operations, if they have one, to serve as a counterbalance, where things are familiar and normal. That's not to say I don't occasionally puncture that sense of normalcy by threatening hearth and home, but that also needs to be done sparingly.  I also mix in a healthy leavening of more normal D&D activities. I think we're mostly on the same page, I just might have a greater fondness for messing with the players' sense of control and system knowledge. Veteran players know the rules and stat blocks inside out, and so making them afraid and inculcating a sense of mystery takes a different tool set.


----------



## Maxperson

Campbell said:


> @Maxperson
> 
> I am not personally looking for the fictional causes. Why design the scenario that way? Why choose that particular fiction out of a plethora of possible fictions?



Okay.  Because some of us like things to make sense within the fiction and it makes sense that if the king has strong knights and needs that place defended, he would put them there.  A lot of DMs design the world from the ground up or use settings that are well detailed like FR.  There are only so many ways for the fiction to grow from those details.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> No, as Campbell has pointed out....I'm not asking for the fictional justification of having the knight there. I am asking why the DM has decided to place that NPC in that location. This is something the DM has chosen to do, and he should be aware of what that choice means.
> 
> Is it to discourage the front gate as being a viable option? If so, then we're touching on what I'm talking about. If this is done as a challenge to the PCs, to make them think of another route into the castle, that's not a problem. If this is to act as a block, and then one by one the PCs find blocks for every other route they try until lo and behold they have to enter the sewers as their only option.....then it's a problem.




I think maybe you're looking for things that may not be present.  A lot of DMs look at the fiction to help them decide what happens in the fiction.  If I have a king in a castle with 7 strong knights and a need to defend a gate, he's going to have Sir Mixalot, Sir Ancelyn, Sir Butwecantakehim and the others there on rotation.  I'm not necessarily looking to discourage the gate as a viable option for the players, challenge the PCs, make them take another route, etc.  I'm just doing what makes sense for this portion of the fiction.



> If you say so. Personally, I'd probably help them winnow that list down from 10 a bit by sharing what their characters would be reasonably able to learn or intuit about the situations.



They have skills, knowledges, etc. and investigated.  They learned quite a bit.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> I think maybe you're looking for things that may not be present.  A lot of DMs look at the fiction to help them decide what happens in the fiction.  If I have a king in a castle with 7 strong knights and a need to defend a gate, he's going to have Sir Mixalot, Sir Ancelyn, Sir Butwecantakehim and the others there on rotation.  I'm not necessarily looking to discourage the gate as a viable option for the players, challenge the PCs, make them take another route, etc.  I'm just doing what makes sense for this portion of the fiction.




I think that in that case, the DM is being kind of thoughtless toward the game, no? Shouldn't at least some consideration for the game and its mechanics come into play when making these design choices? If you're not using a published setting, then there aren't things that "just make sense" because the DM is deciding all the details. He decides how many standard guards there are, how many knights, how they rotate guard duty, the number of entrances that need to be guarded, the presence of ways in that are unguarded......and so on. The entire scenario is decided by the DM. 

I mean, what "makes sense" is a perfectly impenetrable castle...that's what every lord would like. However, that's rarely the case due to limits on resources. But the DM decides such limits......so if the DM decides that the gate is heavily guarded to the point that attempting an assault is suicide, but that there's a sewer entrance that's unguarded....then the DM is pushing toward the sewer as being the means of PC entry to the castle. Which may not be a bad thing, it simply is the case. 

You can't say "this is only the way it is because it's what's been established in the fiction" if it's also true that "the DM is responsible for what's established in the fiction."

If no consideration is given toward how these elements will interact with the PCs, that would be very odd to me. 

Likewise, if a DM is running a pre-written adventure, these kinds of factors have already been considered, but the DM should still give more thought to them and their specific group of players and the characters they're playing. 

I think that's one of the lessons to learn from this thread.....if the pre-written elements don't create a satisfying scenario for the PCs, then the DM should not hesitate to make whatever changes he thinks will help improve the game.



Maxperson said:


> They have skills, knowledges, etc. and investigated.  They learned quite a bit.




Sure, and most of it doesn't seem to matter, ultimately.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> I think that in that case, the DM is being kind of thoughtless toward the game, no?




No.  Thought different, sure.  Thoughtless no.  It depends on the kind of game the players are looking for.



> Shouldn't at least some consideration for the game and its mechanics come into play when making these design choices? If you're not using a published setting, then there aren't things that "just make sense" because the DM is deciding all the details. He decides how many standard guards there are, how many knights, how they rotate guard duty, the number of entrances that need to be guarded, the presence of ways in that are unguarded......and so on. The entire scenario is decided by the DM.




Sometimes those things come into play during adventure design and sometimes not.  That's why I said, "I think maybe you're looking for things that *may not* be present."



> I mean, what "makes sense" is a perfectly impenetrable castle...that's what every lord would like. However, that's rarely the case due to limits on resources.




Exactly.  In the example above they messed up on the sewer and there's the possibility that someone inside can be bribed to weaken a defense, and more.



> But the DM decides such limits......so if the DM decides that the gate is heavily guarded to the point that attempting an assault is suicide, but that there's a sewer entrance that's unguarded....then the DM is pushing toward the sewer as being the means of PC entry to the castle. Which may not be a bad thing, it simply is the case.




Assaulting the gate by simply rushing into it can be suicide.  Maybe they start a fire nearby and see if some or many guards can be pulled away by an emergency in the city.  Maybe have the wizard launch a fireball at the gate to get attention and resources pulled that way and try a different gate while things are chaotic.  Maybe...

The DMs job is to set things up and if the basic set-up has only the sewer as the easy way in, it's really up to the players whether to take that easy path or try something else that might work.  It's not a railroad if the players decide not to challenge the basic set-up and take the easy path.



> You can't say "this is only the way it is because it's what's been established in the fiction" if it's also true that "the DM is responsible for what's established in the fiction."




Why not?  I fully admit that I am responsible for setting things up so that they make sense with the fiction.  Seems compatible to me.



> Likewise, if a DM is running a pre-written adventure, these kinds of factors have already been considered, but the DM should still give more thought to them and their specific group of players and the characters they're playing.




I'm not trying to be offensive, but I find that statement to be truly funny.  I can count on one hand with 4 fingers and a thumb left over how many pre-written adventures I haven't had to change due to things not making sense or not being considered.  They give away too much info here, too little there, don't account for X in this place, and Y in that.  It's more work for me to use a pre-written adventure than it is for me to just make one up myself.



> I think that's one of the lessons to learn from this thread.....if the pre-written elements don't create a satisfying scenario for the PCs, then the DM should not hesitate to make whatever changes he thinks will help improve the game.




As I just noted, I learned that lesson decades ago.



> Sure, and most of it doesn't seem to matter, ultimately.



I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.  I mean, do things only matter if the players come to the right conclusion?  Can they never be allowed to make a wrong decision without all of their skills, knowledges and game play ceasing to matter?


----------



## prabe

Maxperson said:


> No.  Thought different, sure.  Thoughtless no.  It depends on the kind of game the players are looking for.




Agree-ish. I think the GM who considers the possibilities ahead of time is maybe thinking more than the GM who is intending to see where the players wanna go (and I think the GM who's intending to see where the players wanna go is likely to be thinking--or at least creating--more during the session).



Maxperson said:


> Sometimes those things come into play during adventure design and sometimes not.




And sometimes those things have been previously established in the fiction, so the GM is ... kinda stuck with what he's said before. I do not doubt there are different preferences for that kind of internal consistency, but there's nothing inherently wrong or thoughtless about it.



Maxperson said:


> Assaulting the gate by simply rushing into it can be suicide.  Maybe they start a fire nearby and see if some or many guards can be pulled away by an emergency in the city.  Maybe have the wizard launch a fireball at the gate to get attention and resources pulled that way and try a different gate while things are chaotic.  Maybe...
> 
> The DMs job is to set things up and if the basic set-up has only the sewer as the easy way in, it's really up to the players whether to take that easy path or try something else that might work.  It's not a railroad if the players decide not to challenge the basic set-up and take the easy path.




That doesn't sound railroady at all. I dunno how obvious the easy path is--the adventure/scene might have "find the easy path" and "succeed at the hard path" as roughly-equal difficulties. Success available either way. Plausibly ways for the PCs to shift their odds with prep and/or research, regardless of path.



Maxperson said:


> I can count on one hand with 4 fingers and a thumb left over how many pre-written adventures I haven't had to change due to things not making sense or not being considered.  They give away too much info here, too little there, don't account for X in this place, and Y in that.  It's more work for me to use a pre-written adventure than it is if me to just make one up myself.




This has been pretty much my experience of published adventures, always. They don't make sense to me as a player, and they don't make sense to me as a GM. I don't particularly enjoy playing through them, and I do a horrible job of trying to run them.



Maxperson said:


> I mean, do things only matter if the players come to the right conclusion?  Can they never be allowed to make a wrong decision without all of their skills, knowledges and game play ceasing to matter?




If the PCs are never allowed to reach a wrong conclusion, it'd seem as though their choices didn't matter. For some people, not being able to lose is as frustrating as not being able to win. Sure, there may be things the characters have a better sense of than the players--because it's their world--but that gets into a different kind of discussion.


----------



## FrozenNorth

Fenris-77 said:


> Goodnes no, that can't be the choice all the time. Any buffet gets stale when there's only one item on it. As for Ravenloft, I've played it without breaking characters. That doesn't have to be the default state of play at all. I'd also probably suggest that either we're talking about 'horror' in different ways or we have very different definitions of what 'boring' means.



Having played CoS, even with a lighter side DM, it really is a module with a certain about of arbitrary diabolus ex machina and it does get wearing when you have to choose between bad and worse, or the good actions you do are arbitrarily negated by the Dark Powers.


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> That doesn't sound railroady at all. I dunno how obvious the easy path is--the adventure/scene might have "find the easy path" and "succeed at the hard path" as roughly-equal difficulties. Success available either way. Plausibly ways for the PCs to shift their odds with prep and/or research, regardless of path.




So I'm going to look at this impossible castle except for the sewers from a player's perspective.  That set-up is pretty much guaranteed to keep the players from using the sewer. I mean, a king who is highly competent and protects his castle from every conceivable circumstance, yet leaves an enticingly easy sewer entry?!  Admiral Akbar would immediately start screaming in my head and I'd try looking for creative ways to break the "impossible."


----------



## FrozenNorth

Maxperson said:


> I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.  I mean, do things only matter if the players come to the right conclusion?  Can they never be allowed to make a wrong decision without all of their skills, knowledges and game play ceasing to matter?



I agree.  I’d go even further than Maxperson.  Being consistent with the world and the tropes makes it easier for the players to play.

Going back to Maxperson’s castle example, if it isn’t the first castle the players have come across in the campaign (likely the case), they already know the front gate is going to be heavily guarded so they won’t waste time banging their heads against a sub-optimal option.


----------



## prabe

Maxperson said:


> So I'm going to look at this impossible castle except for the sewers from a player's perspective.  That set-up is pretty much guaranteed to keep the players from using the sewer. I mean, a king who is highly competent and protects his castle from every conceivable circumstance, yet leaves an enticingly easy sewer entry?!  Admiral Akbar would immediately start screaming in my head and I'd try looking for creative ways to break the "impossible."




That's the way I tend to think, too, but that's not so much a railroad as psychological judo. If you know your players are more straightforward (and you know they have a hard time being otherwise) I think there's something to be said for not having the unguarded sewer inevitably be a trap, especially if finding the sewer is as hard as fighting your way through the main gate.


----------



## FrozenNorth

prabe said:


> This has been pretty much my experience of published adventures, always. They don't make sense to me as a player, and they don't make sense to me as a GM. I don't particularly enjoy playing through them, and I do a horrible job of trying to run them.



I used to believe this, but I have since modified my stance.  

A good Published adventure is great for giving a “spine” to the campaign (this is the overall goal, these are the principal enemies and obstacles, this is the flavour, here is what the players should know before creating characters) but the DM absolutely has to complete the spine with bones, muscles, skin and organs (not necessarily in that order).

If you do that, you will end up with a perfectly cromulent Frankenstein’s monster of an adventure (to return to our discussion of horror tropes).


----------



## prabe

FrozenNorth said:


> I used to believe this, but I have since modified my stance.
> 
> A good Published adventure is great for giving a “spine” to the campaign (this is the overall goal, these are the principal enemies and obstacles, this is the flavour, here is what the players should know before creating characters) but the DM absolutely has to complete the spine with bones, muscles, skin and organs (not necessarily in that order).
> 
> If you do that, you will end up with a perfectly cromulent Frankenstein’s monster of an adventure (to return to our discussion of horror tropes).




Alas, they make so little sense to me that I'm in roughly the same boat as @Maxperson where it's literally more work to adapt a published adventure than to write my own. I enjoy the doing, there, so it's not punishment or anything.


----------



## hawkeyefan

I want to preface this by pointing out I am discussing when a DM blocks certain actions. Not when they are left to the dice to determine the outcome. I am talking about the paths to success when faced with an obstacle, and how if those paths are removed because the DM decides that they cannot work, _no matter what,_ then the DM is pushing things toward a specific path.

If you don't do this, then whatever you're saying isn't really what I'm talking about.



Maxperson said:


> No.  Thought different, sure.  Thoughtless no.  It depends on the kind of game the players are looking for.




If the DM is not considering the threats he is placing in the PCs path, relative to their level/capability, then the DM is being thoughtless about the game. This is not the same as saying that every thing placed in front of the PCs needs to be something that they can defeat. It simply means that if the DM is responsible for the elements of the game world, then he should give some thought to how they will play, not just the fictional justification for their existence.

And they need not be mutually exclusive. Yes, things should make sense in the fiction. They should also make sense as a game. Sure, it makes sense that the lord would place his most capable knight at the front gate. It also makes sense that the knight has been sent on a quest by the lord, and so is unavailable to guard the gate. The fiction can be anything the DM wants......so whatever the fiction is, is the DM's choice.

So if the DM decides that the super high level knight is guarding the front gate, it's because he wants to deter the PCs from attacking. Which in and of itself is fine. I've absolutely done this in my game.....sometimes, it's interesting to remove one of the most obvious options, or perhaps the option that the PCs most often use....to see what else they come up with.

It only starts to become a problem when more and more options are thus removed by the DM, not because the PCs fail due to dice rolls, but because the DM decides that they simply cannot work.



Maxperson said:


> Sometimes those things come into play during adventure design and sometimes not.  That's why I said, "I think maybe you're looking for things that *may not* be present."




If the DM is not giving consideration to these things, then he is being thoughtless about the game.

If you only ever consider fictional justification....which as we've established can be almost anything you want it to be....then you're not considering the game that's being played.



Maxperson said:


> Exactly.  In the example above they messed up on the sewer and there's the possibility that someone inside can be bribed to weaken a defense, and more.




If multiple paths are being allowed, then this is not something I see as a problem. The DM is considering alternate paths for the PCs to get into the castle.

If the DM's notes say "the front gate is so heavily guarded that it's suicide to go that way, and all those who work in the castle are terrified of the lord to the point where they'd never consider betraying him, and there are no sympathetic NPCs outside the castle who will help the PCs.....but there is a forgotten and unguarded sewer grate that leads inside" and then play consists of the PCs fumbling about until they find the DM's one path to success......that is what I think is bad design, and is very much a railroad in my opinion.



Maxperson said:


> Assaulting the gate by simply rushing into it can be suicide.  Maybe they start a fire nearby and see if some or many guards can be pulled away by an emergency in the city.  Maybe have the wizard launch a fireball at the gate to get attention and resources pulled that way and try a different gate while things are chaotic.  Maybe...
> 
> The DMs job is to set things up and if the basic set-up has only the sewer as the easy way in, it's really up to the players whether to take that easy path or try something else that might work.  It's not a railroad if the players decide not to challenge the basic set-up and take the easy path.




Yes.



Maxperson said:


> Why not?  I fully admit that I am responsible for setting things up so that they make sense with the fiction.  Seems compatible to me.




The fiction is not the reason that anything is happening. As you say, the DM is responsible for all the fiction. Therefore, whatever happens in the game is very much determined by the DM, not by the fiction.

The fiction isn't deciding anything.



Maxperson said:


> I'm not trying to be offensive, but I find that statement to be truly funny.  I can count on one hand with 4 fingers and a thumb left over how many pre-written adventures I haven't had to change due to things not making sense or not being considered.  They give away too much info here, too little there, don't account for X in this place, and Y in that.  It's more work for me to use a pre-written adventure than it is for me to just make one up myself.
> 
> As I just noted, I learned that lesson decades ago.




Plenty of other people have run adventures exactly as written. Plenty of other people aren't worried about X in this place, or Y in that. Other people may think just the right amount of information is given here and there. Opinions on this vary, obviously.

I think this thread clearly shows that many folks cling too much to what's written, whether it's a published adventure or one of their own design.



Maxperson said:


> I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.  I mean, do things only matter if the players come to the right conclusion?  Can they never be allowed to make a wrong decision without all of their skills, knowledges and game play ceasing to matter?




You said that your players came up with 10 ideas, and that 3 could have worked. They chose poorly. Now, I don't know how you decide what would or would not work, but again, I'm talking about the cases where the DM blocks a certain path. So if 7 of 10 ideas simply cannot work, I'd not spend a lot of time on them. I'd instead focus on the three that may, or maybe on the three that may and then one or two of the impossible ones just for reference. I wouldn't want to spend 70% of our time on stuff that won't ultimately matter.

If you're not talking about paths that you simply would not allow, then I mistook your comment.


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> That's the way I tend to think, too, but that's not so much a railroad as psychological judo. If you know your players are more straightforward (and you know they have a hard time being otherwise) I think there's something to be said for not having the unguarded sewer inevitably be a trap, especially if finding the sewer is as hard as fighting your way through the main gate.



For sure.  I often have easy ways not trapped for in fiction reasons.  That doesn't stop the suspicious mind, though.


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> Alas, they make so little sense to me that I'm in roughly the same boat as @Maxperson where it's literally more work to adapt a published adventure than to write my own. I enjoy the doing, there, so it's not punishment or anything.



For me, I use published adventures when I'm having a bit of a creative slowdown.  It may be more work, but it supplies the creativity and weeks of adventure, while I come up with other ideas on my own.


----------



## hawkeyefan

@prabe I've snipped your post a bit to rely to only the parts below. I don't think I've changed any context by doing so.



prabe said:


> Agree-ish. I think the GM who considers the possibilities ahead of time is maybe thinking more than the GM who is intending to see where the players wanna go (and I think the GM who's intending to see where the players wanna go is likely to be thinking--or at least creating--more during the session).




Thinking about the possibilities ahead of time or at the time of play is all fine. I think that what is a problem is deciding ahead of time that certain paths simply won't work. 

Now, of course the fiction and logic come into this. But beyond that, if the DM decides ahead of time that certain paths cannot work, that seems questionable. The more options he removes in this way, the more problematic it becomes.



prabe said:


> And sometimes those things have been previously established in the fiction, so the GM is ... kinda stuck with what he's said before. I do not doubt there are different preferences for that kind of internal consistency, but there's nothing inherently wrong or thoughtless about it.




If the fiction is established solely through DM choice....if the players have little to no input into the fiction....which is pretty much the default for 5e D&D....then he is not bound by the fiction in any way. It's hard to get stuck when you can say anything you want is so. 

I don't think it's a matter of internal consistency so much as these things need to be considered on two levels. One is the fiction. The second is the game. 

If everything I decide for the fiction.....the lord has vast resources of all kinds at his disposal....wizards, highly trained guards, golems, magical wards, and so on......and therefore his castle is impenetrable, this is all consistent, fictionally. It also sucks as a game if the PCs have come to think they need to get into the castle.




prabe said:


> If the PCs are never allowed to reach a wrong conclusion, it'd seem as though their choices didn't matter. For some people, not being able to lose is as frustrating as not being able to win. Sure, there may be things the characters have a better sense of than the players--because it's their world--but that gets into a different kind of discussion.




When I DM 5E, I tend to flat out tell the players lots of details for which I think many other DMs would require a check. I want them to make informed decisions rather than hope to roll high enough to be able to do so. I'm more interested in the result of the stealth roll to get past the guard than I am in the perception check to see if there is a guard. That kind of thing. 

I'm not at all advocating for not allowing the PCs to be able to lose.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> If the DM is not considering the threats he is placing in the PCs path, relative to their level/capability, then the DM is being thoughtless about the game. This is not the same as saying that every thing placed in front of the PCs needs to be something that they can defeat. It simply means that if the DM is responsible for the elements of the game world, then he should give some thought to how they will play, not just the fictional justification for their existence.
> 
> And they need not be mutually exclusive. Yes, things should make sense in the fiction. They should also make sense as a game. Sure, it makes sense that the lord would place his most capable knight at the front gate. It also makes sense that the knight has been sent on a quest by the lord, and so is unavailable to guard the gate. The fiction can be anything the DM wants......so whatever the fiction is, is the DM's choice.




If no thought is ever given to challenges, etc, the game can be considered thoughtless on the part of the DM.  If thought is given in other areas, thought, then what I am describing is not thoughtless.



> So if the DM decides that the super high level knight is guarding the front gate, it's because he wants to deter the PCs from attacking. Which in and of itself is fine. I've absolutely done this in my game.....sometimes, it's interesting to remove one of the most obvious options, or perhaps the option that the PCs most often use....to see what else they come up with.




This still is not true.  If I place the super high level knight at the front gate because it's the most sensible thing in the fiction to do, it's not because I want to deter the PCs from attacking the front gate.  My desires don't come into that decision other than the desire for things to make sense and the desire for the game to be fun for myself and the other players.  That is also not a thoughtless decision.  I put a lot of thought into what would make sense and why the knight is there. 



> It only starts to become a problem when more and more options are thus removed by the DM, not because the PCs fail due to dice rolls, but because the DM decides that they simply cannot work.




This is entirely dependent on what those options are and why the DM is deciding that they cannot work.  If you have a jerk that is just removing options and saying no, because of what he wants to happen in the game, that's bad.  If you have a thoughtful DM who is saying no to an option because it just flat out can't work, then it's not a problem at all. 



> If you only ever consider fictional justification....which as we've established can be almost anything you want it to be....then you're not considering the game that's being played.




I think you're looking at this through the lens of your preferred method of running the game.  There are a lot of people for whom this type of play is most enjoyable.  If I were to run it differently for my players, then I would not be considering the game that is being played.  We emjoy a different playstyle.



> If multiple paths are being allowed, then this is not something I see as a problem. The DM is considering alternate paths for the PCs to get into the castle.




To be honest, I rarely consider paths into and out of places.  I just make the place in the way it seems like it should be made, given the fiction and have at it.  Players are a very ingenious lot and will think of ways that work................and ways that don't. They may even figure out a way past Sir Invincible.



> The fiction is not the reason that anything is happening. As you say, the DM is responsible for all the fiction. Therefore, whatever happens in the game is very much determined by the DM, not by the fiction.
> 
> The fiction isn't deciding anything.




I disagree.  I look to the fiction to inform me of why to do something first and foremost.  It's only after that fails, since the fiction far from covers all things, that I become the sole determiner for what will happen.  For example, if the fiction has 1 or 2 probable ways something might happen, I will pick from those 1 or 2 options. The fiction is entirely the reason why that decision is being made by me.  It's a shared determination, not solely mine.  However, if there's nothing in the fiction to provide me options, then and only then is what is happening not being determined by the fiction and entirely my decision.



> Plenty of other people have run adventures exactly as written. Plenty of other people aren't worried about X in this place, or Y in that. Other people may think just the right amount of information is given here and there. Opinions on this vary, obviously.



And plenty of other people use the Rule of Cool or anime style games.  I'm not saying that my way is the only way or that other ways don't work.  I'm saying that the way I run the game and my players like to play it, I cannot use any published adventure as written.  They all(for the last 20ish years anyway) fail the to pass the bar.



> I think this thread clearly shows that many folks cling too much to what's written, whether it's a published adventure or one of their own design.




Sure, but I think this is more due to inexperience than anything else.  I grew out of that and all the DMs that I've seen from their early days on for a long period of time grew out of that.  I'm sure some never go past that limitation, but I think most do grow.



> You said that your players came up with 10 ideas, and that 3 could have worked. They chose poorly. Now, I don't know how you decide what would or would not work, but again, I'm talking about the cases where the DM blocks a certain path. So if 7 of 10 ideas simply cannot work, I'd not spend a lot of time on them. I'd instead focus on the three that may, or maybe on the three that may and then one or two of the impossible ones just for reference. I wouldn't want to spend 70% of our time on stuff that won't ultimately matter.




There were brainstorming how to solve the problem.  What might or might not work.  To show two of the ideas and how I made that determination I will give a bit of background.

There was an old woman in a small town of about 400 people.  She was fairly mean and had lost her husband a few years earlier.  He was what kept her from getting out of hand.  In the few years prior to this adventure, she clashed a lot with several townsfolk.  Some of the kids would tease her, because of how she acted and one broke one of her windows.  Several neighbors got into arguments with her over one thing or another. 

Nearby was a decrepit church to Beshaba(The Maiden of Misfortune) which had not been used in at least 100 years.  The locals would not tear it down out of fear of Beshaba taking offense.  The old woman eventually became angry enough to go into that church, knelt on the floor and prayed for misfortune to strike her tormentors.  He prayer was answered, though not as she expected.  The floor gave way beneath her and she plummeted into the basement and died upon impact, whereupon Beshaba brought her back as a ghost out for vengeance against those who she felt wronged her. 

Every 7 days after she died, her anger built up enough that she manifested at her home and basically sought out one of her tormentors with single minded rage.  The players discovered her motivation after talking with the townsfolk.  They discovered her corpse in the church.  And knowing what the PCs knew about ghosts, tried to decide how best to lay her to rest.

One of their ideas was to have all the townsfolk who had clashed with her go to the church and apologize at her body.  I hadn't actually thought of that, but I knew that she rested at her body and was calmer during the 7 day build-up and would listen, and that would work.  I'd have simply roleplayed out that scene and it would have worked.  No roll involved.  Another idea idea was to have the townsfolk at the site that she manifested and apologize as she came out of her hut.  Since I knew that she was in a single minded rage at that point, the apologies wouldn't even register to her in that state.  That method would fail.  The nature of ghosts.  They went with the second option and had to fight her off, at which point they gave up on the apology avenue and solved the issue another way.



> If you're not talking about paths that you simply would not allow, then I mistook your comment.




I almost never say no they can't attempt something.  If they wanted to try and jump a three mile wide chasm that is one mile deep, I'd let the player have his PC make that attempt and roll up a new PC.    I'm not about stopping them from trying things.  Things will just sometimes result in an an outright fail.


----------



## Lanefan

Campbell said:


> I am not personally looking for the fictional causes. Why design the scenario that way? Why choose that particular fiction out of a plethora of possible fictions?



Either to a) make getting in more of a challenge either in fact or by appearances (that could, for example, be a simple grunt guard carrying a mockup of Sir Ancelyn's shield as a decoy*); or much less commonly b) - and sometimes there's good reasons for this - trying to funnel the PCs in (or away from) a particular direction or option.

* - and there could be some intrigue here if it ever comes out that Sir Andelyn isn't aware his shield design is being so used...


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> @prabe I've snipped your post a bit to rely to only the parts below. I don't think I've changed any context by doing so.




No worries. I suspect we're disagreeing around the edges, not at the core.



hawkeyefan said:


> Thinking about the possibilities ahead of time or at the time of play is all fine. I think that what is a problem is deciding ahead of time that certain paths simply won't work.
> 
> Now, of course the fiction and logic come into this. But beyond that, if the DM decides ahead of time that certain paths cannot work, that seems questionable. The more options he removes in this way, the more problematic it becomes.




There is, I think a difference between the DM removing options that lead away from a preferred story and the DM removing options because they don't make sense, whether "they don't make sense" is because of something that has arisen in play or because there's something the DM knows that the players don't. It could even be just the way the DM thinks. For example, I was playing through the early stages of a published WotC adventure, and we came upon what were clearly signs marking the entrance to a Thieves' Guild Hideout; I said out loud at the table that if this were happening in a campaign I were running, those signs would lead to death traps, because what serious Thieves' Guild has fricking signs. The DM told me flat-out that he didn't want to play in a dungeon-crawl if I ever wrote one.



hawkeyefan said:


> If the fiction is established solely through DM choice....if the players have little to no input into the fiction....which is pretty much the default for 5e D&D....then he is not bound by the fiction in any way. It's hard to get stuck when you can say anything you want is so.




This isn't entirely untrue, but it is eliding the possibility that the players may have acted in ways that have had ramifications. If this is well into a campaign, the players may have had more input into the fiction than you seem to be presuming. I'll admit that I was thinking of the possibility that the DM might have established something as a fact in the fiction, which the players might reasonably be expected to remember--and which it's also not unreasonable for the players to be reminded of, if they seem to have forgotten. If the campaign has much focus on world-building, that sort of thing should be consistent, IMO, and that's the kind of thing I'm thinking of. (Also, if the place the PCs are going has been described previously ...)



hawkeyefan said:


> If everything I decide for the fiction.....the lord has vast resources of all kinds at his disposal....wizards, highly trained guards, golems, magical wards, and so on......and therefore his castle is impenetrable, this is all consistent, fictionally. It also sucks as a game if the PCs have come to think they need to get into the castle.




Oh, sure, there needs to be consideration of the game, and the emergent story, and there should be at least one path through a given obstacle (or a willingness to allow paths to work--I don't insist that the DM know beforehand everything that will work). None of that seems as though it has to contradict the thought that there might be things that just won't work. It's maybe not horrible DMing to give PCs a chance to know that if the players don't (like making an Arcana check before casting Hypnotic Suggestion on a bunch of constructs--something I've done for a new player recently).



hawkeyefan said:


> When I DM 5E, I tend to flat out tell the players lots of details for which I think many other DMs would require a check. I want them to make informed decisions rather than hope to roll high enough to be able to do so. I'm more interested in the result of the stealth roll to get past the guard than I am in the perception check to see if there is a guard. That kind of thing.




This isn't too far from how I DM--especially the one party that has several PCs who are effectively researchers, and spend lots of time in various libraries. Letting them know (or have a chance to know) stuff that allows for informed (or better-informed) decisions is kinda rewarding them for building and playing their characters that way.


----------



## Scott Christian

prabe said:


> Alas, they make so little sense to me that I'm in roughly the same boat as @Maxperson where it's literally more work to adapt a published adventure than to write my own. I enjoy the doing, there, so it's not punishment or anything.




In my experience, prewritten adventures (that are well written) do a great job. I have run many, and they all seem to flow smoothly. Very few ever needed a rewrite. Now, there is always the side quests and small things they don't have that you need to prep for. But overall, their story's and encounters seem pretty well thought out. Skull & Shackles, a bazillion 1e and 2e adventures and heck, even Hoard of the Dragon Queen ran well for my D&D club students. But as we know, all playstyles are different - and DM styles are even "differenter."


----------



## Scott Christian

As a side note, I will say it is much more fun as a GM to run your own adventure. To me there is a much more natural feel about it. The NPC's, the villains, and even the settings seem more lucid.


----------



## prabe

Scott Christian said:


> As a side note, I will say it is much more fun as a GM to run your own adventure. To me there is a much more natural feel about it. The NPC's, the villains, and even the settings seem more lucid.




Further, if connecting the characters' stories in with the broader adventure is important, it's much easier to do if you're rolling your own.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> If no thought is ever given to challenges, etc, the game can be considered thoughtless on the part of the DM.  If thought is given in other areas, thought, then what I am describing is not thoughtless.




This is why I specifically said that the DM would be "thoughtless toward the game".



Maxperson said:


> This still is not true.  If I place the super high level knight at the front gate because it's the most sensible thing in the fiction to do, it's not because I want to deter the PCs from attacking the front gate.  My desires don't come into that decision other than the desire for things to make sense and the desire for the game to be fun for myself and the other players.  That is also not a thoughtless decision.  I put a lot of thought into what would make sense and why the knight is there.




It is thoughtless toward the game. What would make sense from a fictional standpoint could be any number of things. The knight could literally be anywhere and you could provide a rational explanation in the fiction.

In real life, you are most likely to find me at my home. That does not make it unrealistic to find me in a grocery store or at a friend's house or in Paris on vacation (pandemic aside). So for your example, you're taking what's "most likely" and then treating it as "what must be". And hey, that's fine......make your decision however you want.

But if you haven't thought "hmmmm if I place this high level knight here, it will impact this encounter in this way" then I think you've only done half your job. There are two levels going on here, not just one. The fiction and the game. Both need to be considered.



Maxperson said:


> This is entirely dependent on what those options are and why the DM is deciding that they cannot work.  If you have a jerk that is just removing options and saying no, because of what he wants to happen in the game, that's bad.  If you have a thoughtful DM who is saying no to an option because it just flat out can't work, then it's not a problem at all.




Depending on how many there are and what the reasons are that they "don't work" is potentially a problem. This is my point.

If these decisions are made with consideration for the fiction, and with consideration towards how they will play as a game, letting the PCs come up with their own ideas about how to go about their business, then it's fine. I think we're in agreement on that.

Where I think we disagree is how these things may be decided, and how if the game functions in such a way that the DM decides what's in the fiction, then there is serious potential for things to only go the way the DM wants.



Maxperson said:


> I think you're looking at this through the lens of your preferred method of running the game.  There are a lot of people for whom this type of play is most enjoyable.  If I were to run it differently for my players, then I would not be considering the game that is being played.  We emjoy a different playstyle.




I'm not even advocating for a different playstyle here.

This whole branch of the discussion came about due to my agreement with another poster who said "the more paths that the DM unilaterally removes from play, the more things shift toward being a railroad".

So this is what I'm talking about and have been all along. The DM deciding "path A is impossible". Now, as I've said, one instance isn't really a problem.....but the more it happens in any instance, the worse it is.

So if the DM says "okay, it's essentially suicide to storm the front gates....how else do you want to get into the castle?" that isn't a problem in and of itself.

If the PCs say "Okay, then let's climb over the walls" and the DM says "well that won't work because the guards watching the walls are spaced in such a way that you'll never be able to climb hidden....so no good."

Then they say "Hm, okay how about if we bribe someone to help us get inside?" and the DM goes "Well, the baron is known for his cruelty, and everyone knows that betrayal means death not only for them, but for their family too.....so there's no way this'll work."

And so on, until only the sewer is left as a viable means of entry. This is what is a problem. To me, what would be worse would be to spend a lot of time on actually attempting to play these paths out in some way, only to eventually smash headfirst into DM fiat.

"What makes sense" is subjective, and as we've seen in this thread, often actually means "what's most likely". So some DMs can handle this responsibility just fine. Others can't, but their players are perfectly fine with a very linear railroad. So what I'm describing may or may not be "bad"......but for me, it would tend to diminish my enjoyment of a game the more it occurred.



Maxperson said:


> To be honest, I rarely consider paths into and out of places.  I just make the place in the way it seems like it should be made, given the fiction and have at it.  Players are a very ingenious lot and will think of ways that work................and ways that don't. They may even figure out a way past Sir Invincible.




Sure, and again this is fine overall. I think some consideration absolutely must be given to the game's mechanics, but otherwise, yes, I agree.




Maxperson said:


> I disagree.  I look to the fiction to inform me of why to do something first and foremost.  It's only after that fails, since the fiction far from covers all things, that I become the sole determiner for what will happen.  For example, if the fiction has 1 or 2 probable ways something might happen, I will pick from those 1 or 2 options. The fiction is entirely the reason why that decision is being made by me.  It's a shared determination, not solely mine.  However, if there's nothing in the fiction to provide me options, then and only then is what is happening not being determined by the fiction and entirely my decision.





You've created the fiction.

You look to the fiction to decide how things go.

The fiction tells you how things go.

This is you telling yourself how to adjudicate.



Maxperson said:


> Sure, but I think this is more due to inexperience than anything else.  I grew out of that and all the DMs that I've seen from their early days on for a long period of time grew out of that.  I'm sure some never go past that limitation, but I think most do grow.




I think that it still happens, even with experience. I learned that lesson a long time ago. But my most recent experience in running a published module (Tomb of Annihilation) I found myself relying on what was written more than I perhaps should have. I tend to be very flexible with my own material, but I think that the subconscious fear that I'd mess up "how it was supposed to go" was there. Luckily I realized it, and adjusted for it. Things went much better after that.


Maxperson said:


> I almost never say no they can't attempt something.  If they wanted to try and jump a three mile wide chasm that is one mile deep, I'd let the player have his PC make that attempt and roll up a new PC.    I'm not about stopping them from trying things.  Things will just sometimes result in an an outright fail.




How do you decide what will outright fail?


----------



## Fenris-77

FrozenNorth said:


> Having played CoS, even with a lighter side DM, it really is a module with a certain about of arbitrary diabolus ex machina and it does get wearing when you have to choose between bad and worse, or the good actions you do are arbitrarily negated by the Dark Powers.



I haven't run CoS for 5th, I was more referring to Ravenloft play generally. Back when there was an actual, you know, setting and stuff. I try to avoid most flavors of _ex machina_ whenever possible too.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> So if the DM says "okay, it's essentially suicide to storm the front gates....how else do you want to get into the castle?" that isn't a problem in and of itself.
> 
> If the PCs say "Okay, then let's climb over the walls" and the DM says "well that won't work because the guards watching the walls are spaced in such a way that you'll never be able to climb hidden....so no good."




See, if that was the in game situation, my response would be something like, "The guards watching the walls are spaced in such a way that you'll never be able to simply climb hidden....so if you want to go that route, you'll have to figure a way around that."  

I also gauge things against PC level.  At level 1, I'd probably leave it at that.  At 5th level I'd probably ask for an intelligence check and if successful, I'd mention that they they know that guards tend to get bored after a few hours and would be more easily distracted then.  At 10th level I'd just offer that up without a roll.  

If they then do nothing but try to climb up hidden, they'll be seen.  If they try invisibility, distraction or whatever else, it could work.


> How do you decide what will outright fail?




My experience, knowledge of the issue at hand and knowledge of the NPCs, and variables both known and unknown to the PCs/players.  If I know it won't work, it won't.  If I feel that it would work automatically, it will.  If I'm not entirely certain one way or the other, I'll come up with a DC and ask for a roll.


----------



## prabe

Maxperson said:


> If I know it won't work, it won't.  If I feel that it would work automatically, it will.  If I'm not entirely certain one way or the other, I'll come up with a DC and ask for a roll.




This is the heart of DMing (and GMing in most systems, IME). It's why it's such a lucrative profession.


----------



## Campbell

My point is that unless I know what the agenda is for your game in particular and the principles behind your decisions as a DM/GM/MC it is pretty difficult to talk shop.

If we are talking about Moldvay B/X, DCC, Apocalypse World, Vampire, or Blades there are certain assumptions we can work off of until you correct me. That's not really available with 5e or Pathfinder.

As an example I tend to lean hard into skilled play of the fiction even when running more modern versions of the game. If I'm having a conversation with @pemerton it is helpful to be mindful that he approaches the game very differently from me.


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> This is the heart of DMing (and GMing in most systems, IME). It's why it's such a lucrative profession.



I hadn't noticed that last part.


----------



## FrozenNorth

Fenris-77 said:


> I haven't run CoS for 5th, I was more referring to Ravenloft play generally. Back when there was an actual, you know, setting and stuff. I try to avoid most flavors of _ex machina_ whenever possible too.



Fair enough.  I just wanted to give a warning to someone who might want to run it that it is a specific type of play.


----------



## Fenris-77

FrozenNorth said:


> Fair enough.  I just wanted to give a warning to someone who might want to run it that it is a specific type of play.



That's fair. Even were I to run CoS, which I am familiar with for 5th, I'd have to overhaul it a little to match my style. I suspect that those DEM elements are there because a lot of D&D DMs don't really have strong skills when it comes to running horror, or at least aren't assumed to have them, so it's more in the way of support, so that the results of OoB play more or less match what it says on the tin.


----------



## Campbell

For me personally modern adventures can be useful, but I have to gut out all the assumptions of what the PCs will or should do to get back to a module - just situation.


----------



## prabe

Maxperson said:


> I hadn't noticed that last part.




Me either.


----------



## prabe

Campbell said:


> For me personally modern adventures can be useful, but I have to gut out all the assumptions of what the PCs will or should do to get back to a module - just situation.




While I'm pretty good at guessing what the PCs will do when they have a goal in front of them, I'm not very good at all at guessing what they'll do when they don't. If I know the situation/s, though, I can improvise in-session and adjust out.


----------



## Campbell

prabe said:


> While I'm pretty good at guessing what the PCs will do when they have a goal in front of them, I'm not very good at all at guessing what they'll do when they don't. If I know the situation/s, though, I can improvise in-session and adjust out.




Mostly I do not want to guess what they will have their characters do. I want to find out. I do not design challenges with a solution in mind. I just try to keep things interesting and dynamic.

If I establish an orc tribe that is raiding a local village I largely do not care if the characters kill them, negotiate with them, hire them, or join them. I just want to see how they will approach it and see how it turns out.


----------



## prabe

Campbell said:


> Mostly I do not want to guess what they will have their characters do. I want to find out. I do not design challenges with a solution in mind. I just try to keep things interesting and dynamic.
> 
> If I establish an orc tribe that is raiding a local village I largely do not care if the characters kill them, negotiate with them, hire them, or join them. I just want to see how they will approach it and see how it turns out.




Mostly, I know these characters well enough (as the players are playing them, anyway) that they're pretty predictable from my POV. It's not as though I have any real preference what they do or how they do it. If they want to talk their way past some ogres, that's fine; if they want to fight those same ogres, that's fine, too. Note I said "when they have a goal in front of them." If I know what's motivating them in a given situation, their responses are predictable.

Being able to predict their behavior is more about knowing what needs prepped. If I have a tribe of orcs raiding a local village, I'll prep the orcs for a number of solutions; given that orcs in my setting are more reasonable than the default, and the characters have knowledge of this, I wouldn't necessarily expect them to just set out to kill the orcs. It has nothing to do with any preference on my end for how they handle those orcs (though joining them in raiding the village would be ... unusual for either of the parties I'm DMing for).

It's also not exactly about predicting the approach they'll take to doing whatever they do. If they decide to try to negotiate with the Hypothetical Orcs, I don't know or care to predict how they'll go about doing so; likewise if they decide to fight them. If I put [PROBLEM] between the party and their goal, I know they're going to try to solve it, but the how is a mystery to me (aside from knowing the players and characters pretty well).


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> if the PCs are seeking out an Assassins' guildhouse and their info-gathering puts it in Cheapside Way, on reaching Cheapside Way the DM is fully free to narrate something like:
> 
> "Cheapside Way is a fairly short street with only 5 or 6 things on each side, running east and downhill from the South Market toward the docks.  On the north side starting from your position there's a Butcher, a Leatherworker's shop (maybe? the sign's hard to read), a Curio shop, a building that's probably an orphanage, and a small Temple to [_deity_]. On the south side nearest you there's a small shop selling meat pies and such, then a Clothier, a Glassblower, a Carpenter's workspace and shop, an unmarked building that could be a private residence, and a knockabout pub called the Wit and Wisdom."
> 
> So now there's an orphanage in play.  Is it relevant?  It it window dressing?  Is it a red herring?  The DM knows where the guildhouse is (the Curio shop is a front for it, and they use the Wit and Wisdom as a meeting and contact point) but the players/PCs have to figure it out - quite possibly at some risk if the Assassins realize there's some people poking around who shouldn't be....



<gloss over responses from @Ovinomancer with which I largely agree>


Fanaelialae said:


> This seems to run counter to your claim yesterday that your style of game is virtually impossible to distinguish from a prepped game as far as verisimilitude goes. What you call dross, I see as a rich tapestry of detail intended to draw the player into the world, rather than to mislead them.
> 
> I'm fully willing to accept that your idea of verisimilitude might be different from mine. There's nothing wrong with that. Different people enjoy different styles of play. However, I'm more confident than ever that I'd be able to easily tell the difference.





Fanaelialae said:


> I fundamentally disagree that their intent is to confuse. They are there to add a sense of depth to the world.
> 
> Additionally, there's no reason that they need to be red herrings at all. The shops carry goods, offering an opportunity to resupply. The proprietors might also have need of, or information for, a group of adventurers. They're only red herrings if you choose not to put in the most minimal effort (which can include coming up with details only improvisationally, as needed, when the players choose to engage with a particular element).



My take on this is that _what Lanefan describes does not lead to verisimiitude or immersion_.

When I think of village scenes, I think perhaps of The Prancing Pony in LotR, but even more I think of the village in Yojimbo. That is brought to life by the dynamics of the situation, and a couple of locations with colourful "backdrop" NPCs eg the coffin-maker.

Lanefan is providing a tactical read out. I don't feel that it establishes verisimilitude or depth at all.

The idea of shops as "quest-givers" also doesn't add depth in my view. Because it implies (i) PCs who have nothing more going on in their lives then the quest for quests, and (ii) NPCs whose live revolves around being participants in an adventure game rather than actually living their own real lives.


----------



## fearsomepirate

Lanefan said:


> Which is actually a problem IMO, in that by your descriptions you in effect lead the players by the nose to what's important - or important in your view.  Soft railroad, maybe?




I mean, it's Temple of Elemental Evil. If you run away, the area around Verbobonc is pretty well naughty word. 



> As DM I've had entire adventures spawn from players latching on to an irrelevancy and running away with it.




Well, there's spinning adventure out of something, and there's giving endless, detailed descriptions of things that you're not gonna take anywhere because you don't care and aren't going to. The latter is what I'm talking about. The former is what the last year of the ToEE campaign has been (they let Big Z out, after which there is precious little guidance).


----------



## pemerton

FrogReaver said:


> If I am saying my characters does X how is that action not rooted in the fiction?  I'm also not quite sure what a non-genre appropriate PC action looks like.  Now I think you mean something more specific or nuanced by that statement but I can't tell what it is.



I'm sure there have been other replies to this by now, but I'll give mine. It will consist of a few examples.

(1) There is a big literature about "trying' in the philoso;hy of action and related areas of academic inquiry. For instance, most people woud say that a human being can't try and jump to the moon, because to _try_ means to have some sort of intention, and no one can genuinely form an intention to jump to the moon (as opposed to, say, jumping as high as s/he can) because everyone knows it literally cannot be done. (Maybe there are some people with radical cognitive problems who don't realise the moon can't be jumped to. Let's put them to one side, because in a RPG few if any people are playing PCs with such problems.)

This is why, upthread, I've referred to "genuine" or "sincere" action intentions, because I think action declaratoins like "I talk the dragon into giving me its treasure" are freuently going to be non-genuine or insincere. (That one is also ill-formed - it doesn't actually specify an action that the PC undertakes, it only describes an intention - but that's a further issue.)

(2) An example of a non-genre appropriate action declaration is given by Luke Crane in the Buring Wheel rulebook, when he mentions _searching for beam weaponry in the Duke's toilet _as something that is impermissible. Likewise in a typical cowboy story _I try and outrun the horse _is not genre-appropriate (whereas in a supers game it may well be).

One of the "problems" with high level D&D - which came up in your example of angels carrying someone across a gorge - is that the genre and hence the appropriateness of action declarations is often confused or at least uncertain. Cany the player of a high-level fighter declare _I swim through the lake for an hour like Beowulf did_?

Under the broad label of "genre" we could also put action declarations that are contrary to the spirit of the game. Eg given the importance of treasure-acquisition in a lot of standard/traditional D&D play, action declarations like _I search the village well for a holy avenger_ will probably be inappropriate, and obviousluy so, and the GM can safely ignore or dismiss them. They are attempts to endrun around or completely ignore a basic premise of gameplay.

(3) That example leads into the idea of _action declarations that follow from the fiction_. Of course if the PCs have been following a series of clues and defeating a series of opponents that have led them to the village well as the most likely hiding place of the holy avenger they need to defeat the whatever-it-is, then the above action declarations would _not_ be deviant or genre/premise-breaking. Because it would clearly follow from the fiction.

If you read through this thread you'll see that a lot of the "counter-examples" to a flexible/non-pre-scripted approach to adjudicating NPC responses - like dragons and merchants who give away their hoards at the first request - are ones that (a) violate genre/gamepay premise or (b) do not follow from the fiction or (c) both.

To finish this post, I'll give two examples from my own play that show how I use genre/premise and the fiction to "gateeep" action declarations:

(A) In my 4e D&D game, from time to time the players would declare that their PCs search a room for treasure, even though there was nothing to suggest that there might be treasure there. They were just engaging a FRPG reflex. Normally I would just tell them they find nothing; occasionally if I had something on my treasure parcel list that didn't already have a "place" in the unfolding fiction I might tell them they find it.

I never regarded this as very singificant - 4e D&D, with its treasure pacel system and as we played it - is not primarily a game of searching for treasure (cf, say, Moldvay Basic) and essentially random or ungrounded looking-for-treasure action declarations don't have to be taken seriously.

(B) In one of my Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy games, the PCs were lost in a dungeon after having been teleported away by a Crypt Thing (mechanically they were subject to a d12 Lost in the Dungeon complication). I described a chamber with strange runes (a Strange Runes scene distinction). One of the players had his PC read the runes, with the intention of seeing if they would tell him something about where he was in the dungeon. A successful check (that, mechanically, incorporated that scene disntction) established that they did indeed provide information about the dungeon, so he was able to eliminate the complication on his PC.

That's an example of an action declaration that followed from the fiction, and was appropriate to genre and to gameplay premise. If the game was classic D&D, it would be quite different - the GM would be expected to establish in advance what the meaning of the strange runes is, and recovering from being lost after Crypt Thing teleportation would be a dungeon-crawling-and-mapping challenge.


----------



## Campbell

What makes a game feel realm, what makes it tangible - something we can feel and touch, depends a lot on how we see the world. For me having a character who lives a full life with meaningful roots in the community, existing relationships they can depend on, and the ability to develop a sense of mastery over their environment are what make a game tangible.

When I run a game I see myself as a Master of Ceremonies, a facilitator that enables meaningful play. I make the game feel real by helping players to develop connections to the setting through their characters. Since I have a limited amount of time I focus on the details that are directly relevant to their characters as much as I can tell. That means I do a good amount of just in time establishing of fictional details.

I consider that a better deal than the opposite where a lot of effort is spent on details that are not relevant to the lives of the characters we are playing. I have often in more modern D&D felt like something of a space alien. I have no idea where anything is, no meaningful connections, and am constantly a fish out of water. The more constrained sandboxes designed for play seen in OSR games feel far more real to me than the Forgotten Realms or some massive home brew setting.

Roleplaying games are subjective aesthetic experiences. What works for one group of people might not work for another.


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> Dungeon choke points are not, IMO, railroading. Good dungeon design, especially for larger dungeons, usually requires some gating and separation of various areas. Sometimes that means there's a choke point. That says nothing about how the players should act, or how they can approach the dungeon as a whole.



This has provoked me to a reply that may connect to some of what @Campbell has been saying about the "point" or "orientation" of play (my words, not his; and I'm still catching up so I'm conjecturing this connection rather than being certai of it).

Anyway: _what is the point of the dungeon?_ And _how does it interface with the mechanics?_

If you're playing Moldvay Basic or AD&D then I don't think then notion of "railroad" really has much work to do. The risk in those games is of a _boring_ dungeon, or one that is _too easy_ or is a _killer dungeon_. Too many choke points could create these sorts of problems, but that would be very contextual. And I think it's generally taken to be reasonable in dungeon design to have soe levels (or sub-levels) which have only one entry/exit point.

But that sort of skilled-play/OSR FRPGing is not the only context in which dungeons can occur. In my BW game, the PCs explored a series of caverns chasing a dark elf. And later on have used the catacombs and sewers of Hardby to travel through that city without being noticed. Those situations are resolved through checks on Catacombs-wise, Perception, Speed etc. The existence of a choke point or a blocking wall or whatever is something to be narrated as a consequence of failure, not as a premise for or constraint upon initial action declarations.

I've run underdark exploratoin and travel in 4e in a similar fashion to what I've just described for BW. Eg it was a failed skill challenge that led to the narration of a PC falling through a very thin layer of stone into the river flowing beneath it. The thin stone wasn't a pre-given "trick" to be identified as a chalenge and then resolved: that OSR-style exploration-oriented-challenge-solving play is simply not part of the point of our 4e game. (And personally I don't think 4e is well-suited to it at all.)

Things would be different again in Cortex+ Heroic fantasy. Eg its fine in that system to estabish, as a scene distinction, No Way Forward or Narrow Choke Point or something similar. So like in classic D&D these things might easily figure as an aspect of framing. But mechanically they would operate like any other scene distinction and doesn't impose any distinctively strong restriction on permissible action declarations. Eg a player could delcare actions (based on, say, an approriate field of expertise like Outdoors and an appropriate power like Dwarven Senses) to (in mechanical terms) elminiate the No Way Forward distinction, which (in the fiction) would correlate to finding a way through or around. As that took place, and if it generated failures in the process, the GM would narrate those appropriately (eg imposing mental stress to reflect that the PC doesn't know where s/he is, or appropriate complications, or whatever).

*TL;DR: *we can't talk about whether some particular approach to prep and resolution (eg in this case the use of maps and notes having certain features) is railroading with a bigger sense of the context and orientation of play.



Fenris-77 said:


> Sometimes the physical reality of a place limits options. Clever PCs might find a way around, and that's also a good thing too, but the place is the place. Walls have gates, so getting into the castle means that there will be limited options. In @Lanefan 's example above, where all entries are blocked except one is maybe extreme, but it's not a railroad. It could be a railroad, but I think that has more to do with how the DM handles player actions than it does the physical space.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Generally speaking the whole idea of railroading centers on adjudication rather than adventure or encounter design.



I don't agree with that last sentence because it posits two things as distinct which are intimately connected. "Adventure design", which in the context of dungeons and castles in a typical D&D campaign means _maps and notes_ are tools used to frame situations and then to adjudicate action declarations. Eg the players say _We walk 60' down the corridor_ and then the GM looks at the map and the accompanying notes to resolve that action.

If the point of play is (say) to have character-driven hijinks-ridden adventure, and if the unfolding fiction has delivered up _entering a castle_ as the immediate focus of play, then the GM pre-determining the "physical reaity" of the place and hence pre-determining the outcomes of various feasible or even likely action declarations, that could absolutely be a railroad. And I'm not talking about this from a purely theoretical point of view. Castles and the like figure pretty prominently in a lot of my FRPGIng - especially Prince Valiant but not only that.

Eg in our Burning Wheel game when a pair of PCs wanted to enter the wizard's tower from the sewers and catacombs, I didn't refer to a pre-drawn map to determine whether or not that was possible. We resolved it via a Catacombs-wise check. When the check was failed the PCs still found their way in, but it took them much longer than they hoped which meant that their rival, whom they'd drugged, had recovered and was now racing them there: so in the end it was opposed Speed checks that counted. (The PCs lost, and so the rival got there first and murdered the NPC the PCs were hoping to rescue.)

I think a lot of discussion about D&D - especially when it comes to maps and notes - takes for granted that the skilled play/OSR-type paradgim is still operating. Which is fine, except if we look at the OP scenario that belongs to a completely different paradigm - that sort of burgomaster encounter isn't found in any of the classic dungeons that I know of - and the result is incoherence. The burgomaster encounter seems clearly to belong to some sort of "story" or "plot and drama" oriented RPGing - which of course is fine, except that maps-and-notes type adjudication is pretty ill-suited to that approach to playing the game.


----------



## Fenris-77

@pemerton - I'd disagree that maps have to equal a railroad. There are a million details that players could add to or 'discover' on a pre-drawn map. It's still more about adjudication that design. That's probably an aside though. The real difference here is in our views of what playing D&D actually means.

Your idea of what it means to play D&D really isn't the same as mine. I don't think a player in one of my games has said anything akin to 'we walk 60' down the corridor' since I was a much younger man. My dungeon maps tend to look like flow charts, not architect's drawings, and my NPCs are most often a list of character traits and maybe a link or two to what's going on. Your characterization of skilled/OSR play doesn't really do justice to the way a lot of people play, not just me. What happens to your argument when none of your comments about D&D apply to the D&D I run and play? I'm not sure. The D&D I run is perfectly well suited to run the Burgomeister encounter for example.

I think you're trying to say I can't have notes and maps and still adjudicate the game as a more _play to find out what happens_ kind of thing. However, I can, and do, exactly that. Perhaps you were just speaking generally? Anyway, my point was that the difference between me, and another example DM, one who slides closer to a railroad-y game, tends to be far more a reflection of how they run the game at the table than how they plan it beforehand. I find it interesting that in order to contradict that statement you needed to badly mischaracterize how I run a game. I'm not accusing you of any malfeasance here btw, I just find the gap in our PoV very illuminating.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> Creating different routes to success, and placing different degrees of difficulty on those routes is not railroading....it’s creating meaningful decision points.



I know that we're mostly in agreement or at least like-minded in this thread, but I wanted to express some disagreement with this.

Whether different degrees of difficulty correlate to meaningful decisions seems, to me, and once again, to depend on details of system and orientation of play.

In "skilled"/OSR-type play I agree without hesitation. I hope the reasons are obviousl.

It's also true in BW, but for completely different reasons: PC development in BW depends upon the players being able to pit themselves against a range of obstacles of different mechanical difficulties; and BW also thrives on players being able to choose, in the fiction, how hard their PCs bang their heads against various walls. So different difficulties create a context for these choices to be made, but they're being made within very different frameworks of gameplay logic from those that operate in classic D&D or other OSR-ish games.

In 4e D&D or Cortex+ Heroic, different degrees of difficulty aren't a very important thing. In the former system, degree of difficulty (eg level of a combat encounter; degree of complexity of a skill challenge) is something that I generally control as GM, as it is an important tool for pacing and also - especially in the combat case - for forcing the players to make decisions about resource expenditure.  So whether the players use the sewers or contrive hang gliders to make an aerial assault will change the fiction and hence the PCs' fictional positioning in subsequent scenes, but probably won't change the mechanical difficulty of entering the castle. Here's a post from an old thread that illustrates the idea to some degree at least:



pemerton said:


> As it turns out, the whole party encountered the bear. I didn't want to do any re-statting on the fly, so stuck with the level 13 elite. They players decided that their PCs would try to tame and befriend the bear instead of fighting it. To keep the XP and pacing about the same as I'd planned, I decided to run this as a level 13 complexity 2 skill challenge (6 successes before 3 failures).





Raven Crowking said:


> in a "fiction-first" system, the players could attempt to avoid a combat because that offered their best chance of success.  If you design the challenge of avoiding said combat "To keep the XP and pacing about the same as I'd planned", then you undo the value of that choice.





pemerton said:


> Victim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Similarly, if a diplomatic approach is just as hard as a fight, whether or not the PCs have good CHA, skill trainings, etc means something.  The fact that the characters chose a non violent means of resolving the problem even if it wasn't any easier tells us something about their values.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with this. The player of the paladin actually said, after the bear had been pacified, "I feel really good about not having killed that bear." (He was the player who, in the one previous bear encounter in the campaign, had also initiated non-violent means then.)
Click to expand...


What made the choice to pacify rather than kill the bear meaningful wasn't the effect that it had on mechanical difficulty (it had none) but the effect that it had on the fiction (ie the bear is not dead and rather is a friend of at least some of the PCs).


----------



## pemerton

Fanaelialae said:


> I don't recall your post about the giant steading, and I'm not going to dig it up. It sounds though like you had the players invent some of the details for you (akin to how DungeonWorld is meant to be played).
> 
> Nothing wrong with that. PbA games are great IMO. I actually was a Kickstarter backer for DW. I can definitely see how having your players add details to your world would help to immerse everyone through shared world building.



Cortex+ Heroic is not much like PbtA/Dungeon World. It is a bit like Fate:



pemerton said:


> Cresting a ridge and looking down into the valley below, they can see - at the base of the rise on the opposite side - a large steading. Very large indeed, as they approach it, with 15' walls, doors 10' high and 8' wide, etc. And with a terrible smell. (Scene distinctions: Large Steading, Reeks of Smoke and Worse.)
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Meanwhile (I can't quite remember the action order) the scout has climbed up onto the top of the pallisade, gaining an Overview of the Steading asset
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The next action cycle took place in the main hall of the steading, into which the PCs were led by the giant at the gate. I drew heavily on the G1 thematic here - all but one of the players was familiar with it. And I got to add in my third scene distinction - Great Wolves under the trestle tables and gnawing on bones at the sides of the hall.
> 
> I'm not going to remember all the details of this one, but highlights included: the swordthane opening up negotations with Loge, the giant chief, including - in response to a demand for tribute - offering up the steed as a gift; the scout, after successfully parlaying his Overview of the Steading asset into a Giant Ox in the Barn asset, leading the ox into the hall and trying to trade it for the return of the horse, and failing (despite the giant chief's Slow distinction counting as a d4), and subsequently avoiding being eaten (a stepped-up Put in Mouth complication, as per the Giant datafile in the Guide) only by wedging the giant's mouth open with his knife (a heavily PP-pumped reaction roll); and the swordthane successfully opening a d6 Social resource (based on his Social Expertise) in the form of a giant shaman in the hall, who agreed that the troubles plaguing the human lands were afflicting the giants too, and so they should help one another.



This fiction was established during play, not in advance of it. And as I posted, it had - at least for me - verisimilitude and depth. It made me think of the more slapstick stories of Thor and Loki dealing with giants.

My own view is that maps-and-notes style preparation and adjudicaton is less likely to produce this sort of dynamic fiction with an interweaving of PC actions and story elements (like barns, giant oxen, shamans as well as the "main" focus of the attempt to persuade the chieftain).


----------



## FrogReaver

pemerton said:


> I'm sure there have been other replies to this by now, but I'll give mine. It will consist of a few examples.
> 
> (1) There is a big literature about "trying' in the philoso;hy of action and related areas of academic inquiry. For instance, most people woud say that a human being can't try and jump to the moon, because to _try_ means to have some sort of intention, and no one can genuinely form an intention to jump to the moon (as opposed to, say, jumping as high as s/he can) because everyone knows it literally cannot be done. (Maybe there are some people with radical cognitive problems who don't realise the moon can't be jumped to. Let's put them to one side, because in a RPG few if any people are playing PCs with such problems.)




Leaving aside the philosophies for a moment, it seems to me that in the real world it's impossible to turn lead to gold via alchemy but that didn't stop anyone from trying.

Going back to those philosophies - I would say they are wrong.  I think that from our perspective Failure can never be 100% certain and so to us there is always some miniscule chance of success in whatever endeavor we try - and even moreso in an RPG featuring real magic and gods.



> This is why, upthread, I've referred to "genuine" or "sincere" action intentions, because I think action declaratoins like "I talk the dragon into giving me its treasure" are freuently going to be non-genuine or insincere. (That one is also ill-formed - it doesn't actually specify an action that the PC undertakes, it only describes an intention - but that's a further issue.)




More importantly, I don't think you can judge what is actually genuine or sincere for another.  I think the issue really stems from that philosophy of yours.

Also a minor quibble, "I talk the dragon into giving me its treasure" did specify an action.  "talk" is an action.  That said, it's a vague action in that context as "talk" can take a great many forms and that vagueness makes it difficult to fill in interesting details about the Dragon's reaction.



> (2) An example of a non-genre appropriate action declaration is given by Luke Crane in the Buring Wheel rulebook, when he mentions _searching for beam weaponry in the Duke's toilet _as something that is impermissible. Likewise in a typical cowboy story _I try and outrun the horse _is not genre-appropriate (whereas in a supers game it may well be).




Yes, I'm not familiar with that game, but I believe it's one where the elements the player introduces can actually come to be in the fiction.  Which is why they must limit themselves to genre appropriate statements.  In 5e though where the DM is final arbiter of the fiction, and so you can say I look in the toilet for beam weaponry all you want and you will never find any.  All it does in the fiction is make your character look like a crazy loon.



> One of the "problems" with high level D&D - which came up in your example of angels carrying someone across a gorge - is that the genre and hence the appropriateness of action declarations is often confused or at least uncertain. Cany the player of a high-level fighter declare _I swim through the lake for an hour like Beowulf did_?




That definitely makes it challenging to run but the DM is still final arbiter and so it's also easier in some respects.



> Under the broad label of "genre" we could also put action declarations that are contrary to the spirit of the game. Eg given the importance of treasure-acquisition in a lot of standard/traditional D&D play, action declarations like _I search the village well for a holy avenger_ will probably be inappropriate, and obviousluy so, and the GM can safely ignore or dismiss them. They are attempts to endrun around or completely ignore a basic premise of gameplay.




Which is why the notion of auto-failure is so important in such games.  In any game where the DM serves as final arbiter then being able to declare auto-failure is essential to maintaining the appropriate genre.



> (3) That example leads into the idea of _action declarations that follow from the fiction_. Of course if the PCs have been following a series of clues and defeating a series of opponents that have led them to the village well as the most likely hiding place of the holy avenger they need to defeat the whatever-it-is, then the above action declarations would _not_ be deviant or genre/premise-breaking. Because it would clearly follow from the fiction.




I think what you are calling "follow from the fiction" is actually "follow from the established fiction".  IMO that is an important distinction. 



> If you read through this thread you'll see that a lot of the "counter-examples" to a flexible/non-pre-scripted approach to adjudicating NPC responses - like dragons and merchants who give away their hoards at the first request - are ones that (a) violate genre/gamepay premise or (b) do not follow from the fiction or (c) both.




I think there's a great deal of mislabeling examples because people are trying to force them to fit into one of those options.  Speaking of - violate gameplay premise is a concept I think I was the first to introduce in this thread as a plausible alternative for explaining why a dragon giving away it's horde still shouldn't be an option in a no/low-prep D&D game.



> To finish this post, I'll give two examples from my own play that show how I use genre/premise and the fiction to "gateeep" action declarations:
> 
> (A) In my 4e D&D game, from time to time the players would declare that their PCs search a room for treasure, even though there was nothing to suggest that there might be treasure there. They were just engaging a FRPG reflex. Normally I would just tell them they find nothing; occasionally if I had something on my treasure parcel list that didn't already have a "place" in the unfolding fiction I might tell them they find it.
> 
> I never regarded this as very singificant - 4e D&D, with its treasure pacel system and as we played it - is not primarily a game of searching for treasure (cf, say, Moldvay Basic) and essentially random or ungrounded looking-for-treasure action declarations don't have to be taken seriously.




That's a problem I've solved just by asking them to be more specific about where and how they are searching. 



> (B) In one of my Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy games, the PCs were lost in a dungeon after having been teleported away by a Crypt Thing (mechanically they were subject to a d12 Lost in the Dungeon complication). I described a chamber with strange runes (a Strange Runes scene distinction). One of the players had his PC read the runes, with the intention of seeing if they would tell him something about where he was in the dungeon. A successful check (that, mechanically, incorporated that scene disntction) established that they did indeed provide information about the dungeon, so he was able to eliminate the complication on his PC.
> 
> That's an example of an action declaration that followed from the fiction, and was appropriate to genre and to gameplay premise. If the game was classic D&D, it would be quite different - the GM would be expected to establish in advance what the meaning of the strange runes is, and recovering from being lost after Crypt Thing teleportation would be a dungeon-crawling-and-mapping challenge.




If that PC's action can be used to establish something important about the Dungeon that wasn't previously established then I'm not sure how it followed from the fiction in any sense other than how any arbitrary action that is attempted by a PC always follows from the fiction. 

I guess where I'm at is that I don't distinguish there to be any meaningful difference between a PC action inventing strange runes to tell him where in the dungeon he is and a PC action establishing that the strange runes you just found are for that purpose.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> If the PCs are never allowed to reach a wrong conclusion, it'd seem as though their choices didn't matter.



This is what action resolution is for, isn't it?

But if we're talking about "wrong conclusions" outside the context of failed action resolution, then we're back into _RPGing as puzzle-solving_. Which is one way but not the only way, and tends to push play towards expedience.


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> I tend to lean hard into skilled play of the fiction even when running more modern versions of the game. If I'm having a conversation with @pemerton it is helpful to be mindful that he approaches the game very differently from me.



If you wanted to elaborate on those differences I'd be happy for you to do so.

My first thoughts are that (i) I rate passion/conviction very highly as a factor in resolution, and (ii) I'm very sentimental. These are probably not unrelated.

Upthread I posted the example of the PC who challenged Sir Lionheart tried to a joust, was turnd down on the basis that he was just a squire and Sir Lionheart does not joust with squires, and then tried to brush past Sir Lionheart. At that point we rolled Presence vs Presence, the player (for his PC) won, and hence he got what he wanted: Sir Lionheart knighted him so he could joust him.

I wouldn't characterise that as skilled play of the fiction. I would say it's engaged play of the tropes and the passions/convictions of the characters (both PC - his desire to be knighted - and NPC - his sense of honour and glory).

I'm guessing that that sort of thing wouldn't necessarily be a big part of your (@Campbell's) play.

When eventually (!) I get to GM Apocalypse World, which forces the GM to be unsentimentally hard, I'm going to be interested to seee how it goes.


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> @pemerton - I'd disagree that maps have to equal a railroad.



You're not disagreeing. I said the same thing!

I went further and said that in paradigmatically maps-and-notes-based play (ie classic D&D, OSR-ish RPGIng) I don't even think the idea of "railroading" is really apposite. The flaws of those games are boring dungeons, killer dungeons, Monty Haul dungeons etc.

In a different sort of RPGIng maps don't have to be railroading either - in my Classic Traveller game I used floorpans of the Annic Nova when I adapted that old module to run a Alien-type scenario. That wasn't a railroad because the players' didn't have goals about _what they would find in the vessel _or _how to make it through the vessel_. So the particular geographic layout was essentially neutral vis-a-vis the players' goals.

But in examples like _entering the castle _or _making it into the tower via the catacombs _or _finding one's way out of the dungeon after being teleported away by a crypt thing_ then the geography is fundamental to the players' goals. And at that point it absolutely can give rise to railroading.

The same thing becomes true in relation to NPCs and NPC reactions. Deciding in advance that the NPC likes donuts and doesn't drink wine seems like most of the time it will be harmless: if the players want their PCs to get on the NPC's good side by giving a gift, they're going to have to take a stab or ask a friend of the NPC what s/he likes. Provided it doesn't become too tedious that all seems like harmless, maybe even fun, colour.

But if one of the PCs is a baker, or is a vintner, then the GM's choice there takes on a whole new significance and runs a very signficiant risk of being a railroad, or a shutdown of that PC, or something similar in that neighbourhood. Because the baker PC presumably uses the provision of baked goods to make friends; likewise the vintner PC presuably likes to engage others with his/her love of fine wines.

In saying all this I thik I'm mostly just elaborating on what @hawkeyefan has been saying. But I think I'm also adding a gloss that _we can't say, in the abstract, that some techncque _(eg maps-and-notes) _is or isn't railroading_. It depends on the particular context of play. But I think we can say that some techniques are not well-suited to some fairly common approaches to play: eg NPC-as-puzzle (ie the analogue of maps-and-notes in social resolution) may not be well-suited to a game that wants vibraint, verisimilitudinous, rich and engaging social encounters. With the OP as Exhibit A as to why.



Fenris-77 said:


> Your idea of what it means to play D&D really isn't the same as mine. I don't think a player in one of my games has said anything akin to 'we walk 60' down the corridor' since I was a much younger man. My dungeon maps tend to look like flow charts, not architect's drawings, and my NPCs are most often a list of character traits and maybe a link or two to what's going on. Your characterization of skilled/OSR play doesn't really do justice to the way a lot of people play, not just me. What happens to your argument when none of your comments about D&D apply to the D&D I run and play? I'm not sure. The D&D I run is perfectly well suited to run the Burgomeister encounter for example.
> 
> I think you're trying to say I can't have notes and maps and still adjudicate the game as a more _play to find out what happens_ kind of thing. However, I can, and do, exactly that. Perhaps you were just speaking generally? Anyway, my point was that the difference between me, and another example DM, one who slides closer to a railroad-y game, tends to be far more a reflection of how they run the game at the table than how they plan it beforehand. I find it interesting that in order to contradict that statement you needed to badly mischaracterize how I run a game. I'm not accusing you of any malfeasance here btw, I just find the gap in our PoV very illuminating.



Well I don't know much about how you run D&D because I don't think I've seen you post much actual play.

When I think of maps-and-notes I think paradigmatically of Keep on the Borderlands, or Steading of the Hil Giant Chief, or the 4e module Thunderspire Labyrinth. All these modules invite action declarations like "We walk 60' down the corridor."

As I said in the post you quoted and have reiterated, I don't think there is any necessary tension between maps-and-notes and finding out what happens, but there can be. I've explained there and reiterated just above what the sources of tension can be. I think we see them at work in the OP.

To finish this post: if your maps and notes are not to resolve action declarations, what are they for? I can tell you what mine are fore - eg as in the example of the Annic Nova. They're to support framing. The same thing happened when we played Wuthering Heights: we needed to know how long it would take to carry a body from Soho to the Thames and so I Googled up a map of London. From that we could get a time range, which then interacted with the rule that a ghost (ie the ghost of the PC's body which was to be dumped in the Thames) manifests a certain number of minutes after death.

But I know from this and other threads that @Lanefan and @Maxperson are using maps-and-notes to resolve action declarations. This comes through absolutely clearly in the most recent discussion of the castle to be entered.

What do you use maps and notes for?


----------



## Imaculata

pemerton said:


> What do you use maps and notes for?



For me personally:

I use my maps for tactical combat, and as an extra visualisation for the lay out of locations. When you design your locations to have a rather intricate lay out, this can also make it more difficult for the players to understand the space based merely on your description. Further more, descriptions can get rather wordy, which makes it more difficult for players to process all the information. The maps serve as an extra visual and memory aid for the players. It lets them clearly see which rooms they've already been to, and which rooms are still unexplored. It also helps illustrate line of sight and positioning.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> My take on this is that _what Lanefan describes does not lead to verisimiitude or immersion_.
> 
> When I think of village scenes, I think perhaps of The Prancing Pony in LotR, but even more I think of the village in Yojimbo.



Never heard of Yojimbo - what is it, and should I know it?



> Lanefan is providing a tactical read out. I don't feel that it establishes verisimilitude or depth at all.



I could have gone into quick descriptions of each building or shop e.g. what the building is made of, whether it abuts directly to the next one or not, etc., and would if asked.  I know for my own part that even while making that up (which I did while typing the post) I was able to get a pretty good picture in my own mind of what that street looked like; and remember what I was typing up were just the one-liners for secondary sites; I didn't bother typing up the long - as in, room-by-room - description of the Curio shop and its back area or the long write-up of the Wit and Wisdom and its usual occupants.

It depends on the imagination of the players as to how much info is needed for them to be able to form a useful picture in their minds of what's being described



> The idea of shops as "quest-givers" also doesn't add depth in my view. Because it implies (i) PCs who have nothing more going on in their lives then the quest for quests,



They're adventurers - what else are they supposed to be doing?



> and (ii) NPCs whose live revolves around being participants in an adventure game rather than actually living their own real lives.



The one-line notes merely give info as to their most basic basis of interaction with the PCs should such interaction arise.  I've no idea what you're complaining about here.

EDIT TO ADD: by the way @pemerton , the quote attributed to me in the post of yours I quote above (post 897 for me) was not something I posted.


----------



## Lanefan

fearsomepirate said:


> I mean, it's Temple of Elemental Evil.



Been about forever and a week since I ran that one. 



> Well, there's spinning adventure out of something, and there's giving endless, detailed descriptions of things that you're not gonna take anywhere because you don't care and aren't going to.



I may have no intention of taking anything anywhere as DM but that's not to say the players won't grab on to some random shred of description or event and run it to the moon.

I just have to be ready and able to deal with it if and when they do.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> the quote attributed to me in the post of yours I quote above (post 897 for me) was not something I posted.



Sorry about that. I've fixed the tags.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Lanefan said:


> Never heard of Yojimbo - what is it, and should I know it?
> 
> I could have gone into quick descriptions of each building or shop e.g. what the building is made of, whether it abuts directly to the next one or not, etc., and would if asked.  I know for my own part that even while making that up (which I did while typing the post) I was able to get a pretty good picture in my own mind of what that street looked like; and remember what I was typing up were just the one-liners for secondary sites; I didn't bother typing up the long - as in, room-by-room - description of the Curio shop and its back area or the long write-up of the Wit and Wisdom and its usual occupants.
> 
> It depends on the imagination of the players as to how much info is needed for them to be able to form a useful picture in their minds of what's being described
> 
> They're adventurers - what else are they supposed to be doing?
> 
> The one-line notes merely give info as to their most basic basis of interaction with the PCs should such interaction arise.  I've no idea what you're complaining about here.
> 
> EDIT TO ADD: by the way @pemerton , the quote attributed to me in the post of yours I quote above (post 897 for me) was not something I posted.



The post that was incorrectly attributed to you was mine. I recall, earlier this year, several users posted in meta saying that quotes were sometimes being misattributed. Might be that same bug.


----------



## Fanaelialae

pemerton said:


> My take on this is that _what Lanefan describes does not lead to verisimiitude or immersion_.
> 
> When I think of village scenes, I think perhaps of The Prancing Pony in LotR, but even more I think of the village in Yojimbo. That is brought to life by the dynamics of the situation, and a couple of locations with colourful "backdrop" NPCs eg the coffin-maker.
> 
> Lanefan is providing a tactical read out. I don't feel that it establishes verisimilitude or depth at all.
> 
> The idea of shops as "quest-givers" also doesn't add depth in my view. Because it implies (i) PCs who have nothing more going on in their lives then the quest for quests, and (ii) NPCs whose live revolves around being participants in an adventure game rather than actually living their own real lives.



I think it was well detailed for the description of a particular section of street. Certainly it could have used a few colorful details, but as @Lanefan already stated (and which was my impression as well) it was just a brief write up of locations. 

You could convey that this is a bad part of town by describing the rank scent of garbage that hangs in the dead air. Alternately, you could suggest that this is a well-cared-for area by describing the colorful flowers planted alongside the road which dance as a cool spring breeze gusts through them. 

Comparing a section of street to the Prancing Pony or the town in Yojimbo seems a bit of a mismatch. In the former, you're comparing a section of street to a busy inn, while in the latter you're comparing the section of street to an entire town. That's apples and oranges IMO. 

I don't get the sense of a tactical readout from his description, although I do think it could be fleshed out a bit. Given that in the original example the players are looking for assassins (who are in the orphanage) it seems like a good assortment of locations in the area. Of course, if you value expediance, you could just have them track the assassins to the orphanage and start with describing the orphanage they are standing next to. However @Lanefan was angling for more of an investigative scenario, where the players need to figure out where the assassins are hiding.

I never described the shop keepers as "quest givers". Those are your words, not mine. I said that they don't need to be red herrings, and can serve purposes outside the assassin hunting scenario. I offered three possible uses that they could serve (resupply, information, and needing something). That wasn't an exhaustive list of possibilities, just low hanging fruit within the context of a D&D game, illustrating that it doesn't take much to transform these elements into more than just red herrings. Other possibilities might include a character taking an interest in an NPC as a friend or even romantically. The possibilities are quite open ended.


Maybe it would help if I describe my approach for designing NPCs. Central to their design is one or more motivations. The motivation is what drives the character. 

We've been discussing them as traits in this thread, but when properly done I believe they need to be actual motivations. The baron's is that he has a fragile ego and wants to be respected. He also wants to overcome the darkness of Ravenloft (though the way he goes about this isn't remotely useful). The honorable guardsman's is that he wants to uphold his honor. 

From there I'll add something distinctive about that NPC, some detail that stands out about them. This could be their appearance, or a personality quirk, a scent, or anything really, as long as its notable. 

The baron has his weird (for Ravenloft) positive outlook, while the guardsman might bear many scars as a result of the constant duels he fights to maintain his honor. 

Then I figure out what their capabilities are. What resources do they have to accomplish their goals? This might admittedly be simply imploring others to help them.

The baron has authority over the town, as well as the guards who serve him. The guard might simply have his fighting prowess (if he's a personal guard) or he might also have some authority if he's a member of the city guard.

Finally, I fill in any missing details that I think are relevant, though I avoid going overboard here. The players frequently do things that I don't anticipate, so improvisation is to be expected. 

Note that I don't do this for every possible NPC in my game (that would be excessive). Just the ones that I think might matter. Although that's somewhat misleading, as I tend to start by populating a town with some interesting NPCs and then having them be around town to interact with (or not). Sometimes the PCs latch on to a throw away NPC (an urchin they asked for directions) and I end up retroactively fleshing out an NPC who already exists because it was improvised. Even when I improvise though, I try to keep those three elements in mind.


----------



## Fenris-77

pemerton said:


> You're not disagreeing. I said the same thing!
> 
> I went further and said that in paradigmatically maps-and-notes-based play (ie classic D&D, OSR-ish RPGIng) I don't even think the idea of "railroading" is really apposite. The flaws of those games are boring dungeons, killer dungeons, Monty Haul dungeons etc.
> 
> In a different sort of RPGIng maps don't have to be railroading either - in my Classic Traveller game I used floorpans of the Annic Nova when I adapted that old module to run a Alien-type scenario. That wasn't a railroad because the players' didn't have goals about _what they would find in the vessel _or _how to make it through the vessel_. So the particular geographic layout was essentially neutral vis-a-vis the players' goals.
> 
> But in examples like _entering the castle _or _making it into the tower via the catacombs _or _finding one's way out of the dungeon after being teleported away by a crypt thing_ then the geography is fundamental to the players' goals. And at that point it absolutely can give rise to railroading.
> 
> The same thing becomes true in relation to NPCs and NPC reactions. Deciding in advance that the NPC likes donuts and doesn't drink wine seems like most of the time it will be harmless: if the players want their PCs to get on the NPC's good side by giving a gift, they're going to have to take a stab or ask a friend of the NPC what s/he likes. Provided it doesn't become too tedious that all seems like harmless, maybe even fun, colour.
> 
> But if one of the PCs is a baker, or is a vintner, then the GM's choice there takes on a whole new significance and runs a very signficiant risk of being a railroad, or a shutdown of that PC, or something similar in that neighbourhood. Because the baker PC presumably uses the provision of baked goods to make friends; likewise the vintner PC presuably likes to engage others with his/her love of fine wines.
> 
> In saying all this I thik I'm mostly just elaborating on what @hawkeyefan has been saying. But I think I'm also adding a gloss that _we can't say, in the abstract, that some techncque _(eg maps-and-notes) _is or isn't railroading_. It depends on the particular context of play. But I think we can say that some techniques are not well-suited to some fairly common approaches to play: eg NPC-as-puzzle (ie the analogue of maps-and-notes in social resolution) may not be well-suited to a game that wants vibraint, verisimilitudinous, rich and engaging social encounters. With the OP as Exhibit A as to why.



I'd probably still disagree about the nature of maps vis a vis railroading and player goals, at least in the abstract. A map can be a railroad, for sure, but that's down to map design. The maps that are probably index a preference on the part of the designer to limit options and the force the action in particular ways. Obviously I missed you general thesis that it's mostly a matter of can and not will, to which I wholeheartedly agree.

As far as NPCs goes, I also agree with the above, but I think the example your using, of bakers and baked goods, is perhaps somewhat trivial as far as railroading goes. If the NPC is abstemious then that is a pretty significant part of their character. That doesn't make them not gracious though, so it wouldn't have to affect the player necessarily. It's also the case that a hundred different gifts might do in that case, and the fact that one linked to a PC won't in that case doesn't really register for me as railroading. Not because of the character or choices particularly, but because it doesn't make sense to me that the whole game world is full of people who love muffins just because one of the PCs is a baker. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, and it's possibly nitpicky of me to engage with the specific example.

If I'm reading what you mean as NPC-as-puzzle correctly, which I think broadly means that the NPC has one handle and it's the job of the PCs to figure out what it is, then I'd agree that it's a poor way to inculcate vibrant social interact. That's not really a character though, it's a cardboard cutout. I don't approach NPC design or play that way at all.



pemerton said:


> Well I don't know much about how you run D&D because I don't think I've seen you post much actual play.



That's mostly on purpose. I find that examples of actual play tend to sidetrack conversations. If I had one that fit a convo perfectly I'd use it, but mostly it feels like trying to fit the evidence to the thesis for me. Also, my memory for the fine details of play is poor for the most part, at least as far as being able to recount them as blow by blow recaps. I envy your ability to summon up that level of detail seemingly at will.


pemerton said:


> <snip>
> 
> To finish this post: if your maps and notes are not to resolve action declarations, what are they for? I can tell you what mine are fore - eg as in the example of the Annic Nova. They're to support framing. The same thing happened when we played Wuthering Heights: we needed to know how long it would take to carry a body from Soho to the Thames and so I Googled up a map of London. From that we could get a time range, which then interacted with the rule that a ghost (ie the ghost of the PC's body which was to be dumped in the Thames) manifests a certain number of minutes after death.
> 
> But I know from this and other threads that @Lanefan and @Maxperson are using maps-and-notes to resolve action declarations. This comes through absolutely clearly in the most recent discussion of the castle to be entered.
> 
> What do you use maps and notes for?



I think there's something pretty interesting to be unpacked here. When you say you use them to support fictional framing, I feel like I agree with you, as in that's what I use them for. However, if you asked me what well framed fiction was specifically good for, I'd probably say to aid in adjudicating actions. The two ideas seem pretty closely linked to me. There must be some nuance there that I'm missing in order for you to present those a two quite different processes. 

One difficulty, for me at least, is that NPCs and physical spaces don't play the same way, or at least I don't use them the same way. I don't usually bother with physical maps for anything smaller than a real dungeon, and even then, I don't really see the connections of the physical space as something that limits player choice in a negative way. I mean obviously it does limit choice, when there are only two corridors you have only two choices, but that seems trivially obvious. Maybe it's because I don't have room contents in the way that a published module does that I'm struggling here. My 'dungeons' tend to have sorts of inhabitants, and sorts of possible treasure, and there may be some loosely strung together encounters, but those aren't tied to rooms. The idea that X is waiting in room Y has never made any sense to me, as it makes the place enormously static rather than responsive to the players actions. As soon as the players hit a dungeon, the inhabitants are in motion, and where the players might encounter X, Y or Z, has everything to do with their choices and nothing to do with the map. My maps are just a tool to keep me colouring inside the lines when it comes to obeying the laws of physics, really.

As for NPCs, what I actually do in play varies a little. I will have notes of some kind for important NPCs, but in other cases I don't. In the latter case the fiction guides my responses and thus adjudication. So lets say the players encounter a guardsman of some kind. If I don't have notes, his responses and personality are going to be defined by what a 'usual' exemplar of that role would be in the fiction. A poorly paid guardsman snoozing next to a dilapidated warehouse door is one thing, and the highly trained and motivated guards outside the kings bedchamber are something else. In each case I don't have anything predetermined about responses, I just react to whatever the PCs decide to do as an approach in a way that makes sense for the role of that NPC. That is modified in each case by any success or failure states from PC actions that might apply going in (a failed stealth check, a successful performance check for a disguise - stuff that sometimes gets rolled for before engaging with an NPC). 

I don't ask for SI rolls to start, I ask for declarations. There, the answer to _what do you do?_  sets the parameters for how the actions unfolds. My description prior to that question usually contains some information that the players can use to guide their actions - the guard seems nervous, or the clerk seems busy and annoyed. If I have notes, those also often have some drives or personality traits that I'll use to frame an ongoing interaction when they matter. My first hurdle for social interaction is usually about objections. If the PCs are asking for something and there's no reason the NPC shouldn't comply, then there's no rolling involved. In the case of a nervous guard, the fact that he's nervous is probably the initial hurdle, set in the context of him doing his job. To go back to your bakery example, if I had an NPC who from my notes was abstemious and also a dick, that will inform his response to the offer of pastries. It won't dictate his response mind you, because that completely negates all the nuance that exists in various specific player approaches and declarations, but it will inform his response. 

I'm not sure where that leaves me on the question of what do I use notes for relative to framing versus adjudication.


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> I know that we're mostly in agreement or at least like-minded in this thread, but I wanted to express some disagreement with this.
> 
> Whether different degrees of difficulty correlate to meaningful decisions seems, to me, and once again, to depend on details of system and orientation of play.




I would agree with that. My comments in this thread have primarily been about 5e D&D. So for that comment about difficulties and meaningful decision points, I meant something like a party being level 5 and very focused on combat (in D&D, imagine that!) looking at the front gate and the overwhelming forces there, versus considering the sewers which will likely require some locks to be picked and devices to be disabled, which is not their strong suit. 

So they have to decide on the path to take, leaning onto their strong suit despite the odds, or taking a path that does not play to their strengths. 

Just a hastily sketched example to clarify what I meant. 

When I run Blades in the Dark, this isn’t relevant at all, for a variety of reasons.


----------



## pemerton

Fanaelialae said:


> I think it was well detailed for the description of a particular section of street. Certainly it could have used a few colorful details, but as @Lanefan already stated (and which was my impression as well) it was just a brief write up of locations.
> 
> You could convey that this is a bad part of town by describing the rank scent of garbage that hangs in the dead air. Alternately, you could suggest that this is a well-cared-for area by describing the colorful flowers planted alongside the road which dance as a cool spring breeze gusts through them.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't get the sense of a tactical readout from his description, although I do think it could be fleshed out a bit. Given that in the original example the players are looking for assassins (who are in the orphanage) it seems like a good assortment of locations in the area.



I wasn't commenting on a lack of detail or a need for "fleshing out". More that it didn't really give me a sense of being there. It's presented as a static state of affairs rather than a situation that draws me in. There's a long tradition of that in RPGing, especially but not only D&D, but I don't find that it creates verisimilitude or depth.

An alternative approach would be to mention simply _shops and buildings_, and narrate a pie-seller or curio-seller or preacher vending her wares - which one is chosen depending on what the players (via their PCs) are interested in. I think that might be more likely to draw the players into the situation, which I think is the best approach to depth and verisimilitude.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> Never heard of Yojimbo - what is it, and should I know it?



It's a film by Kurosawa. You might know the remake "A Fistful of Dollars".


----------



## Fanaelialae

pemerton said:


> I wasn't commenting on a lack of detail or a need for "fleshing out". More that it didn't really give me a sense of being there. It's presented as a static state of affairs rather than a situation that draws me in. There's a long tradition of that in RPGing, especially but not only D&D, but I don't find that it creates verisimilitude or depth.
> 
> An alternative approach would be to mention simply _shops and buildings_, and narrate a pie-seller or curio-seller or preacher vending her wares - which one is chosen depending on what the players (via their PCs) are interested in. I think that might be more likely to draw the players into the situation, which I think is the best approach to depth and verisimilitude.



Sure, having NPCs hawking wares on the side of the road is a perfectly fine option. But what if that isn't the feel you're looking to convey for this particular neighborhood? 

What if the street is deserted when the PCs arrive, maybe because the presence of the assassins keeps people off the streets (scary people who recently moved into the area)? 

Sometimes it makes sense for a scenario to be fairly static until the PCs stir it up. I disagree that such a scene can't be immersive. Obviously, you stated your opinion and I accept that for what it is. However, IME, I've run and played through plenty of immersive scenes that consisted of a single character and their surrounding environment.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> This is what action resolution is for, isn't it?
> 
> But if we're talking about "wrong conclusions" outside the context of failed action resolution, then we're back into _RPGing as puzzle-solving_. Which is one way but not the only way, and tends to push play towards expedience.




My wording "wrong conclusion" was echoing the post I was quoting. A better phrase than "come to the wrong conclusion" is "make mistakes." If the PCs can never make mistakes--if (as an example that I'm not saying anyone is running or advocating) you're running something that looks like a mystery but the murderer is the person the PCs decide it is, then at least one consequence (wrongly accusing someone) is off the table, innit? Which points to something I've been circling around and coming back to, that if the PCs can't lose they can't really win, either; if the state of the fiction is the same no matter what they choose, their choices don't make any difference. If--to refer back to the example I was responding to--the PCs don't do the research to find the sewer entrance to the castle, they don't find it, and they probably end up facing (and probably fighting) a competent guard force--unless they think of something else, find some other option: Yes, that's going to come down to the GM's judgment, but at least in a game like D&D (especially 5E) that's (a large part of) what the GM is there for.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> My wording "wrong conclusion" was echoing the post I was quoting. A better phrase than "come to the wrong conclusion" is "make mistakes." If the PCs can never make mistakes--if (as an example that I'm not saying anyone is running or advocating) you're running something that looks like a mystery but the murderer is the person the PCs decide it is, then at least one consequence (wrongly accusing someone) is off the table, innit?



Isn't this what action resolution is for?



prabe said:


> if the state of the fiction is the same no matter what they choose, their choices don't make any difference.



But no one in this thread - literally no one - has advocated for this, nor has anyone said anything that implies it.



prabe said:


> If--to refer back to the example I was responding to--the PCs don't do the research to find the sewer entrance to the castle, they don't find it, and they probably end up facing (and probably fighting) a competent guard force



I don't see what this has to do at all with _making mistakes _or _making wrong choices_. If the PC enter through the sewer that's one sort of fiction. If they fight the guards that's a different sort of fiction. I don't see what this has to do with _difficulty _or with _making mistakes_.


----------



## pemerton

Fanaelialae said:


> What if the street is deserted when the PCs arrive, maybe because the presence of the assassins keeps people off the streets (scary people who recently moved into the area)?



Then tell me that. @Lanefan's description doesn't give me any sense at all of what that street is like.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> Isn't this what action resolution is for?




Action resolution is for resolving actions. It's not about making decisions (except in specific cases where it specifically is). Deciding to sneak by the guard is not the same thing as resolving the attempt to do so.



pemerton said:


> I don't see what this has to do at all with _making mistakes _or _making wrong choices_. If the PC enter through the sewer that's one sort of fiction. If they fight the guards that's a different sort of fiction. I don't see what this has to do with _difficulty _or with _making mistakes_.




The only way it has anything to do with making a mistake is if the PCs don't want to fight the guards, or if they would prefer to enter quietly. There was some discussion as to whether it was good scenario design to have the fight at the gate look impossible, or whether it was attempting to guide the PCs to a preferred alternative; my position is that it can be good design, and it doesn't have to involve any GM preferences, but it could be bad and there could be some rails coming into play. The only relevant mistake to be made would arguably be a failure to look for the sewer entrance if the PCs wanted to get in without interacting with the guards on the gate.


----------



## Fenris-77

Calling it 'the fight at the gate' also presupposes that there isn't a way to get past the gate without fighting, which I would assume is possible in most cases. Aside from the gate being locked down or some such, I can't picture a fictional frame where there wouldn't at least be _some_ opportunity to get past the gate using trickery or stealth.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> Calling it 'the fight at the gate' also presupposes that there isn't a way to get past the gate without fighting, which I would assume is possible in most cases. Aside from the gate being locked down or some such, I can't picture a fictional frame where there wouldn't at least be _some_ opportunity to get past the gate using trickery or stealth.




Absolutely. "The fight at the gate" wasn't specifically meant to convey that fighting was the only way past the gate, though I guess phrasing it that way is a little sloppy. More broadly, if the scenario is designed so that getting in without fighting the guards is as difficult as fighting the guards--whether that means researching the sewer entrance, climbing the walls, talking/sneaking past the guards--then you have options open to the party. If a party chooses a method of entry that doesn't play to their strengths, then that's arguably a mistake.


----------



## Manbearcat

Its so difficult to get a read on _exactly what is happening under the hood during play_ with the way some folks talk about their games. 

When I post an excerpt of play from one of my games, I don't think people can mistake _exactly what is happening under the hood during play.  _

It would go a long way toward clarity if people posted excerpts of what is happening during a moment of play in a way that captures (a) the actual GMing ethos of play and how that intersects with the framing of the situation at hand, (b) the resolution machinery, (c) player orientation toward the situation (habitation of their PC to the fiction, their personal cognitive workspace when managing the demands of the actual game component, and how their action declarations interface with all of the prior) that undergirds how play is propelled from one gamestate to the next.

People have this tendency to zoom out, abstract a too-large-chunk, post a transcript of play like they're actually writing fiction, and invariably elide all kinds of details with statements like "and then we made some rolls".  "Made some rolls" or "make a roll" (or any variation thereof) couldn't be less helpful.  That leaves respondents in a pretty precarious position trying to in-fill all of that elided information with presumption (or typically off-the-mark extrapolation) to sort out how gamestate 1 got to gamestate 2 got to gamestate 3.  The lead post is a good example of this (which is why, in another thread, I requested a much higher resolution post-mortem of the play transcript).  

Please, when anyone is posting an actual excerpt of play, or even a hypothetical one, meaty, precise information about how and why a gamestate evolved is extremely important to having these kinds of discussions.  Focus on a very small chunk of play like a laser beam and give good information on how it evolved to its next state.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> Action resolution is for resolving actions. It's not about making decisions (except in specific cases where it specifically is). Deciding to sneak by the guard is not the same thing as resolving the attempt to do so.



I find this a strange statement.  Action are what drives the fiction -- nothing else does except, perhaps, a GM just telling you a story.  And, I agree, the decision to sneak past a guard is not the same as trying to do so.  However, in game, as a GM, I really don't care at all about your decision on what to do because I do not adjudicate that and the fiction in play doesn't address or reflect this.  Only the action to do so actually matters in play.

And, if the action is being tested, and the GM isn't using Force to drive to a desired outcome, then we have failure and wrongness in action resolution -- I don't necessarily have to add it in prep (you can, no doubt, but you don't have to).  By not using Force I mean that the GM will narrate a failure state for the action on a failure and a success state on the action if it succeeds and not have those be the same because the GM wishes the action to succeed or fail.

For the guard, let's say the player decides they want to sneak past.  Cool, I don't have anything to do with this as a GM and it doesn't task me to narrate new fiction.  What does is when the player starts declaring actions for their character to actually do the deed.  Likely, there will be a few actions declared that I let auto-succeed, like moving through the town to where the guard is and taking up a starting locations.  This is action resolution, even if it's usually handled very informally, because the GM has to decide if it occurs like asked or if mechanics need to be involved or if it fails due to notes or whatever.  Then we get to where the PC ties to sneak past the guard.  However the GM chooses to adjudicate this (multiple rolls, different ability checks for different parts, one roll, whatever), the crux is that the fiction that occurs on a success will be different from the fiction on a failure.  You might use succeed at a cost for the fail state, in which case the fictional difference is the cost.  You may use a hard move and have a failure be discovery and an alarm, or some state between.  What should NOT happen is that the fail state and success state be the same.  That's an example GM Force -- the outcome is fixed regardless of player input.

So, yeah, I don't follow you when you suggest that action resolution cannot result in failures, mistakes, or being wrong (in the case of attempted social encounters, or trap disarming, or knowing something, etc).  Action resolution is a great tool for finding out PCs are wrong or have made a mistake.  It doesn't have to be written in the GM's notes (although that's a perfectly valid approach).




> The only way it has anything to do with making a mistake is if the PCs don't want to fight the guards, or if they would prefer to enter quietly. There was some discussion as to whether it was good scenario design to have the fight at the gate look impossible, or whether it was attempting to guide the PCs to a preferred alternative; my position is that it can be good design, and it doesn't have to involve any GM preferences, but it could be bad and there could be some rails coming into play. The only relevant mistake to be made would arguably be a failure to look for the sewer entrance if the PCs wanted to get in without interacting with the guards on the gate.



I think a lot of people have said it could go either way depending on circumstance.  And, I don't see how it's the player's mistake if the GM frames only the gate and doesn't provide indications that the sewer might exist.  That's a GM mistake.  Not a horrible, end of game, terrible no good one, but the GM is responsible for outlining the basic options of play in scene framing in 5e.  This is a critical duty because the players cannot introduce new fiction, only the GM can, so it's the responsibility of the GM to make sure relevant fictional pathways are at least available through foreshadowing even if not immediately presented as obvious.  Failure to do so means the players are not in the position of having to guess if there's another route the GM has prepped at all times because the GM will not present it unless you ask the right questions.  I get that a lot of people play this way, and that's fine, so long as they're having fun doing so.  However, fundamentally, when you look at the roles and authorities of the GM, this is only ever their fault, even as it's often placed on the players for not being thorough or asking the right questions.

Oddly, I think this is much less true to not true at all for other games so much as it is for 5e (or other D&D).  The more the players can propose new fiction and the more the GM is constrained in resolution of action declarations, the less necessary it is to provide the options in framing.  I could frame a heavily guarded gate in other systems and be comfortable not providing any other avenues because the players can create them with action declarations.  I can challenge those through action resolution, but if they succeed, that fiction is true.  If not, well, it's not true, or at least not true they way that they wanted.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> Leaving aside the philosophies for a moment, it seems to me that in the real world it's impossible to turn lead to gold via alchemy but that didn't stop anyone from trying.
> 
> Going back to those philosophies - I would say they are wrong.  I think that from our perspective Failure can never be 100% certain and so to us there is always some miniscule chance of success in whatever endeavor we try - and even moreso in an RPG featuring real magic and gods.
> 
> 
> 
> More importantly, I don't think you can judge what is actually genuine or sincere for another.  I think the issue really stems from that philosophy of yours.
> 
> Also a minor quibble, "I talk the dragon into giving me its treasure" did specify an action.  "talk" is an action.  That said, it's a vague action in that context as "talk" can take a great many forms and that vagueness makes it difficult to fill in interesting details about the Dragon's reaction.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm not familiar with that game, but I believe it's one where the elements the player introduces can actually come to be in the fiction.  Which is why they must limit themselves to genre appropriate statements.  In 5e though where the DM is final arbiter of the fiction, and so you can say I look in the toilet for beam weaponry all you want and you will never find any.  All it does in the fiction is make your character look like a crazy loon.
> 
> 
> 
> That definitely makes it challenging to run but the DM is still final arbiter and so it's also easier in some respects.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why the notion of auto-failure is so important in such games.  In any game where the DM serves as final arbiter then being able to declare auto-failure is essential to maintaining the appropriate genre.
> 
> 
> 
> I think what you are calling "follow from the fiction" is actually "follow from the established fiction".  IMO that is an important distinction.
> 
> 
> 
> I think there's a great deal of mislabeling examples because people are trying to force them to fit into one of those options.  Speaking of - violate gameplay premise is a concept I think I was the first to introduce in this thread as a plausible alternative for explaining why a dragon giving away it's horde still shouldn't be an option in a no/low-prep D&D game.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a problem I've solved just by asking them to be more specific about where and how they are searching.
> 
> 
> 
> If that PC's action can be used to establish something important about the Dungeon that wasn't previously established then I'm not sure how it followed from the fiction in any sense other than how any arbitrary action that is attempted by a PC always follows from the fiction.
> 
> I guess where I'm at is that I don't distinguish there to be any meaningful difference between a PC action inventing strange runes to tell him where in the dungeon he is and a PC action establishing that the strange runes you just found are for that purpose.



I'm confused.  Genre appropriateness has been presented as an input into GM adjudication of action in the sense of if it's not present the GM can fail the declaration without engaging the action.  Like, not allowing someone to find a ray gun in the baron's closet, or asking a dragon to give away it's horde.  These are not genre appropriate to a 5e game and so the GM can use that heuristic to not consider them and fail them without consideration.  You say that genre appropriateness isn't a useful test of action declarations because there's no requirement for the player to adhere to genre in their declarations and beside, the GM can refuse those actions anyway.  That seems to miss the point because there wasn't a claim that the player was beholden to genre in action declarations, but that it was a consideration for how the GM would adjudicate that action declaration -- a claim you seem to agree with at least in outcome in that non-appropriate declarations should be made to fail.  

Now, that said, a player that presents genre inappropriate action declarations consistently or even just a few egregious ones will get an out-of-game discussion.  In game, as in with the mechanics, there's nothing about an inappropriate declaration that isn't easily handled by refusing to allow success of the action.  This holds across many game systems.  Genre appropriateness is a heuristic for the GM to use in adjudicating the action.  In a game like 5e, where the GM decides, it's an input to auto-success or failure (ie, if a check is even called for) or to how an ability check is resolved (what ability check, what DC, etc.).  Genre-appropriateness needs to guide the narration of the result as well.  It's a GM side heuristic for both determining if an action requires adjudication or refusal, and what possible narrations of the outcomes might be.

For example, if a 1st level fighter without any assistance or magic, is declared to be jumping to the moon, the GM can choose to refuse this action declaration based on being genre inappropriate.  The attempt would not happen, and the GM should, at least, take a moment out-of-game to discuss it with the player as to why it was refused.  The GM might also use the same-heuristic to allow the action, but declare it automatic failure, and narrate a result, like, "you try as hard as you can, but just look silly jumping up and down but only getting a few feet off the ground.  In the meantime, you've made a lot of noise and, <clatter> it appears someone or something is coming to investigate.  What do you do?"

If the GM has some established in the fiction reason to consider the action, then that might control.  If the fighter happens to be standing where the GM has revealed that there's an environmental effect that a jumping person will be teleported to the moon, then the adjudication of this action changes.  The established fiction has provided a way to avoid genre inappropriateness, and the action is consistent with that established fiction.  Viola!  The 1st level fighter now 'jumps' to the moon in a way that is both grounded in the fiction and is genre appropriate.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> I find this a strange statement.  Action are what drives the fiction -- nothing else does except, perhaps, a GM just telling you a story.  And, I agree, the decision to sneak past a guard is not the same as trying to do so.  However, in game, as a GM, I really don't care at all about your decision on what to do because I do not adjudicate that and the fiction in play doesn't address or reflect this.  Only the action to do so actually matters in play.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> So, yeah, I don't follow you when you suggest that action resolution cannot result in failures, mistakes, or being wrong (in the case of attempted social encounters, or trap disarming, or knowing something, etc).  Action resolution is a great tool for finding out PCs are wrong or have made a mistake.  It doesn't have to be written in the GM's notes (although that's a perfectly valid approach).




If there be things that cannot be made to work, attempting one of those is a mistake. Sure, one can narrate negative results on Ability Checks (in 5E) as mistakes--it's something I do from time to time--but that's not what I was talking about. Making a mistake while disarming a trap does not mean it was a mistake to try.



Ovinomancer said:


> I think a lot of people have said it could go either way depending on circumstance.  And, I don't see how it's the player's mistake if the GM frames only the gate and doesn't provide indications that the sewer might exist.  That's a GM mistake.  Not a horrible, end of game, terrible no good one, but the GM is responsible for outlining the basic options of play in scene framing in 5e.  This is a critical duty because the players cannot introduce new fiction, only the GM can, so it's the responsibility of the GM to make sure relevant fictional pathways are at least available through foreshadowing even if not immediately presented as obvious.  Failure to do so means the players are not in the position of having to guess if there's another route the GM has prepped at all times because the GM will not present it unless you ask the right questions.  I get that a lot of people play this way, and that's fine, so long as they're having fun doing so.  However, fundamentally, when you look at the roles and authorities of the GM, this is only ever their fault, even as it's often placed on the players for not being thorough or asking the right questions.




In this instance, while I agree there should be some information available to the players that the sewer (or some other way in) exists, if the PCs don't look for it, that's arguably a mistake--as you point out. If they look for it and fail, that's an action resolution (possibly more than one).



Ovinomancer said:


> Oddly, I think this is much less true to not true at all for other games so much as it is for 5e (or other D&D).  The more the players can propose new fiction and the more the GM is constrained in resolution of action declarations, the less necessary it is to provide the options in framing.  I could frame a heavily guarded gate in other systems and be comfortable not providing any other avenues because the players can create them with action declarations.  I can challenge those through action resolution, but if they succeed, that fiction is true.  If not, well, it's not true, or at least not true they way that they wanted.




I am amused, because this sort of thing happens from time to time in one or the other of my 5E campaigns, where someone will attempt something I hadn't considered. If--hypothetically--I had introduced a castle with a nigh-impregnable gate, and a player had asked about the sewer, I might think for a moment and decide that of course there's a sewer entrance, and yes it's possible (though not necessarily easy) to find it and get in that way. This is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned the PCs doing things the GM hadn't thought of. I'll admit it's less player-facing/mechanically defined than in some other games, but to me it seems to get to a similar place.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> If there be things that cannot be made to work, attempting one of those is a mistake. Sure, one can narrate negative results on Ability Checks (in 5E) as mistakes--it's something I do from time to time--but that's not what I was talking about. Making a mistake while disarming a trap does not mean it was a mistake to try.



Ah, you're looking for those situations where the players make a mistake in judgement in deciding on a course of action.  I'd say that's an application of GM Force.  Not all such applications are bad or to be avoided, but having a course of action be an automatic failure regardless of approach is a matter of Force (provided the action is grounded in the fiction (as revealed) and genre appropriate, of course).  If, say, attacking the gate will result in the PC's being defeated, no matter what, with the intent that the PCs are forced into other options and this isn't made absolutely clear in framing, then this is an error on the GM's part, not the players.

I have no problem with a situation that's well framed as impossible being found to be so if the players decided to do it anyway.  I do have an issue with the impossibility of the action being hidden in the GM's notes, because that's a gotcha, and I don't like gotcha play, at all.




> In this instance, while I agree there should be some information available to the players that the sewer (or some other way in) exists, if the PCs don't look for it, that's arguably a mistake--as you point out. If they look for it and fail, that's an action resolution (possibly more than one).



It's only a mistake is the other available options have been determined by the GM to be failures regardless of approach.  Which, if this isn't communicated, is a mistake by the GM.  I don't have an issue with a gate being described as well guarded to the point of being a suicide run to attack.  That's like describing a wall -- it's just a different flavor.  I have issue with there being no other options or the description of the gate as suicide not being sufficiently clear.  I, as GM, am not required to provide a pathway through the gate, but I shouldn't be hiding other solution paths or expecting my players to play 20 questions to find out what they are.  Nor should I be playing gotcha by not providing enough details or even hiding them.  It's unnecessary, and, for me, stems largely from constructing adventures in specific ways.  Granted, those are well trodden ways and there are many examples of such in published adventures.  But, you don't have to do it that way.  You can construct meaningful and engaging challenge without hiding information by making the challenge about getting what you want rather than divining what's in the GM's notes.

I have absolutely no problem with players choosing actions that go poorly for them.  I'm just going to make sure that this is either because the dice say it does or that, at the end, the players clearly see that the decision was in spite of every indication otherwise.  My experience is that I can hand my players my notes, tell them things three or four times each, rent a few billboards, and they'll still find a way to screw up by the numbers.  I don't have to play coy with things because they're _players_.  




> I am amused, because this sort of thing happens from time to time in one or the other of my 5E campaigns, where someone will attempt something I hadn't considered. If--hypothetically--I had introduced a castle with a nigh-impregnable gate, and a player had asked about the sewer, I might think for a moment and decide that of course there's a sewer entrance, and yes it's possible (though not necessarily easy) to find it and get in that way. This is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned the PCs doing things the GM hadn't thought of. I'll admit it's less player-facing/mechanically defined than in some other games, but to me it seems to get to a similar place.



So long as there's a different outcome on a failure, cool.  I do this kind of thing all the time in 5e.  The system is not well set up for it, and will fight you if you try to use it as a common resolution, but there's a lot of cases where you can let the players introduce new fiction and things work fine.  Ultimately, though, 5e is GM decides, and that structure means that player attempting to introduce new fiction is always at the mercy of the GM, which is not conducive to the player's being able to rely on a consistent adjudication if the GM is rejecting introductions not through the mechanics but through their authority.  Unreliable mechanics like that are critically based on table dynamics and trust -- it's very easy to start to feel like you're playing "GM may I?"


----------



## Lanefan

Fanaelialae said:


> I think it was well detailed for the description of a particular section of street. Certainly it could have used a few colorful details, but as @Lanefan already stated (and which was my impression as well) it was just a brief write up of locations.
> 
> ...
> 
> I don't get the sense of a tactical readout from his description, although I do think it could be fleshed out a bit. Given that in the original example the players are looking for assassins (who are in the orphanage) it seems like a good assortment of locations in the area. Of course, if you value expediance, you could just have them track the assassins to the orphanage and start with describing the orphanage they are standing next to. However @Lanefan was angling for more of an investigative scenario, where the players need to figure out where the assassins are hiding.



Aha!  My red herring worked! 

The Assassins aren't in the orphanage at all.  They're in (behind) the Curio shop. (as per my original post of this silly example)

The orphanage connection is that the kids there are the only people in the area (other than the Assassins themselves) with complete knowledge of this.



> I never described the shop keepers as "quest givers". Those are your words, not mine. I said that they don't need to be red herrings, and can serve purposes outside the assassin hunting scenario. I offered three possible uses that they could serve (resupply, information, and needing something). That wasn't an exhaustive list of possibilities, just low hanging fruit within the context of a D&D game, illustrating that it doesn't take much to transform these elements into more than just red herrings. Other possibilities might include a character taking an interest in an NPC as a friend or even romantically. The possibilities are quite open ended.



Perhaps more importantly, and IMO more sadly, these possibilities more or less don't exist if it's all skipped over and the DM puts (or frames) the PCs straight into the Curio shop.



> Note that I don't do this for every possible NPC in my game (that would be excessive). Just the ones that I think might matter. Although that's somewhat misleading, as I tend to start by populating a town with some interesting NPCs and then having them be around town to interact with (or not). Sometimes the PCs latch on to a throw away NPC (an urchin they asked for directions) and I end up retroactively fleshing out an NPC who already exists because it was improvised. Even when I improvise though, I try to keep those three elements in mind.



Sometimes you just gotta guess who will end up becoming important and flesh those ones out, and some of those guesses will inevitably end up being wrong.  So be it.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Lanefan said:


> Perhaps more importantly, and IMO more sadly, these possibilities more or less don't exist if it's all skipped over and the DM puts (or frames) the PCs straight into the Curio shop.



I think this gets right to the heart of things, and I snipped the rest.  Yes, those details do not exist.  Those possibilities do not exist.  But some other set of details and possibilities exists that do not if those do.  It's not 'these details or none in their place.'  That I put a different focus on my games as to where play occurs doesn't reduce the level of detail or the scope of possibilities -- I just have a different set of them.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> I would agree with that. My comments in this thread have primarily been about 5e D&D. So for that comment about difficulties and meaningful decision points, I meant something like a party being level 5 and very focused on combat (in D&D, imagine that!) looking at the front gate and the overwhelming forces there, versus considering the sewers which will likely require some locks to be picked and devices to be disabled, which is not their strong suit.
> 
> So they have to decide on the path to take, leaning onto their strong suit despite the odds, or taking a path that does not play to their strengths.



This is exactly the sort of choice I want to see them having to make.

From there, other choices arise: if they choose the sewer route do they then try to recruit a local "locksmith" to help out (this could lead to a whole series of interesting interactions on its own!) or go it themselves; do they try to do some research on the layout of the sewers or just wade in and rely on their direction sense; do they go now when the weather's dry and thus the "water" level will be lower or do they wait for tomorrow's forecast rainstorm and go then when the water level is higher but the contents are more diluted (and when the falling rain and added flow will help cover any unusual noise)?  Etc.

Or if they choose the gate do they try to hire some locals to arrange a distraction or not; do they do anything to bolster their own fighting capabilities or not e.g. recruit a mercenary or two or just stick with their own selves; etc., etc.

Or - horrors - do they split the party, bolster each group a bit, and try both options at once in hopes that one will succeed? (if nothing else, a brawl at the gates will be a great distraction in aid of the sewer-waders...)


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Then tell me that. @Lanefan's description doesn't give me any sense at all of what that street is like.



There's a reason for that.

I-as-writer ahead of time have no way of knowing what time of day or year the PCs will first see the street (if ever!), nor do I know such details as temperature, weather conditions, or any other day-to-day variable.  That street even at first glance is going to look quite different in each of these:

--- the PCs arrive at the street just after noon on a warm summer day (the shops are open, there's activity all over the place including people just using the street to get from A to B, lots of noise and bustle)
--- the PCs arrive at the street just after noon in a driving rain with a stiff chilly breeze blowing up from the harbour (the shops are open but nobody's outside who doesn't absolutely have to be, and it's probably a slow day for business)
--- the PCs arrive at the street in the middle of a clear frosty winter's night (the shops are closed, the streets are pretty much deserted and very quiet, there's a light on at the Wit and Wisdom but even it's been closed for an hour now)
--- [etc.; I could bang out three dozen different situations without even putting any thought into it]

All these variables mean _the only things I can legitimately write ahead of time are those things that are pretty much permanent_ - the buildings, their full-time occupants, and a scrap note or two on their ongoing interactions (e.g. the orphans always stealing pies from the Pie Shop). It's on the DM to fill in all the variable details based on when (and perhaps how) the PCs arrive on the scene and under what conditions e.g. weather.

In my write-up the only assumption I made was that the PCs would arrive from the Market Square at the top of the street; easy enough to spin it around if they first see the street from the bottom e.g. they approach from the harbour side.


----------



## Lanefan

Ovinomancer said:


> I think this gets right to the heart of things, and I snipped the rest.  Yes, those details do not exist.  Those possibilities do not exist.  But some other set of details and possibilities exists that do not if those do.



Where and how?



> It's not 'these details or none in their place.'



Actually, yes it is: it's 'these d+p's, or these d+p's plus a bunch of other d+p's'.

The details in the Curio Shop/Assassins' guildhouse are always going to be there (whether discovered or not); ditto for the details of the street around it. Jumping straight to the Curio Shop does two things: one, it forces discovery of the details and possibilities that are there (which discovery otherwise may or may not happen, or may happen in ways unforeseen); and two, it denies the opportunity to discover and (maybe) interact with all the other details and-or give rise to all the other possibilities.

Further, it also completely skips the whole investigation and deduction process (and potential associated risks!) around finding where the guildhouse really is.



> That I put a different focus on my games as to where play occurs doesn't reduce the level of detail or the scope of possibilities -- I just have a different set of them.



I'm sure the level of detail is excellent in those places where you choose to give it; and the scope of possibilities is complete at that time and place.

What you're reducing is the number of times and-or places where those details and possibilities can exist at all.

My guess - and please correct me if I'm wrong - is that you're looking at maximizing table-time efficiency before anything else.

It matters not to me as DM whether they take four sessions sorting out what's going on in that street, figure it out (maybe after some gnashing of teeth and scratching of heads), and then go after the guildhouse itself in sesson five.  It seems, however, that your preference would be to get the whole thing done and dusted in one session.

I don't get this at all.  If a situation can give me five sessions of good play instead of just one I'll take that all day long!


----------



## Ovinomancer

Lanefan said:


> Where and how?
> 
> Actually, yes it is: it's 'these d+p's, or these d+p's plus a bunch of other d+p's'.
> 
> The details in the Curio Shop/Assassins' guildhouse are always going to be there (whether discovered or not); ditto for the details of the street around it. Jumping straight to the Curio Shop does two things: one, it forces discovery of the details and possibilities that are there (which discovery otherwise may or may not happen, or may happen in ways unforeseen); and two, it denies the opportunity to discover and (maybe) interact with all the other details and-or give rise to all the other possibilities.
> 
> Further, it also completely skips the whole investigation and deduction process (and potential associated risks!) around finding where the guildhouse really is.
> 
> I'm sure the level of detail is excellent in those places where you choose to give it; and the scope of possibilities is complete at that time and place.
> 
> What you're reducing is the number of times and-or places where those details and possibilities can exist at all.
> 
> My guess - and please correct me if I'm wrong - is that you're looking at maximizing table-time efficiency before anything else.
> 
> It matters not to me as DM whether they take four sessions sorting out what's going on in that street, figure it out (maybe after some gnashing of teeth and scratching of heads), and then go after the guildhouse itself in sesson five.  It seems, however, that your preference would be to get the whole thing done and dusted in one session.
> 
> I don't get this at all.  If a situation can give me five sessions of good play instead of just one I'll take that all day long!



This last is weird.  Why is a situation that takes five sessions better than one that takes one, if everyone enjoys the situation and it moves the game along?  Why is one situation taking five days better that five situations each taking one day?

My answers to those questions:  It's not, to both.  It's different.


----------



## Doug McCrae

The worst rpg session I've ever experienced was one in which it took us the whole session to scale an ice cliff. I prefer a fast pace both as a player and as a GM.

I can't remember many of the details, probably because there weren't very many. The system was 2e AD&D but the DM had hacked it to use the Rolemaster skill system. This was around 1990. My PC was a rogue, the most skilled in the group at climbing, in fact I think I'd maxed out my climb skill under his system.

Gordon, the DM, would've been a boring DM no matter what system he used. I remember players having to declare their actions about five times before he'd respond. His preference was for challenge oriented play.


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> Its so difficult to get a read on _exactly what is happening under the hood during play_ with the way some folks talk about their games.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It would go a long way toward clarity if people posted excerpts of what is happening during a moment of play in a way that captures (a) the actual GMing ethos of play and how that intersects with the framing of the situation at hand, (b) the resolution machinery, (c) player orientation toward the situation (habitation of their PC to the fiction, their personal cognitive workspace when managing the demands of the actual game component, and how their action declarations interface with all of the prior) that undergirds how play is propelled from one gamestate to the next.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Please, when anyone is posting an actual excerpt of play, or even a hypothetical one, meaty, precise information about how and why a gamestate evolved is extremely important to having these kinds of discussions.  Focus on a very small chunk of play like a laser beam and give good information on how it evolved to its next state.



I try to do this. Sometimes it's tricky because (i) the actual play reportage gets quite lengthy quite quckly, and (ii) other posters aren't always familiar with the system being used (especially if it's not D&D or some version thereof).

But for some recent posts of mine in this thread that try to do what you ask for, there's the post that talks about _taming the bear _in a 4e D&D game, and the post that talks about _the interaction between PCs and the giant steading _in Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy.

What I try and focus on (though probably with varying consistency and thoroughness) is _how was the framing established, and what exactly was that framing_ and then _what actions were declared by the players for their PCs _and then _how were those actions resolved, with what resulting affect on the shared fiction_.


----------



## pemerton

Doug McCrae said:


> The worst rpg session I've ever experienced was one in which it took us the whole session to scale an ice cliff. I prefer a fast pace both as a player and as a GM.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Gordon, the DM, would've been a boring DM no matter what system he used. I remember players having to declare their actions about five times before he'd respond. His preference was for challenge oriented play.



I'm not very good at challenge-oriented play either as player or GM.

I hope I'm not as boring as Gordon was, but I do struggle to bring the challenges alive and have things progress with good pacing.

The closest I've come in recent times to running something challenge-oriented (at least that I can think of) is the Aliens-inspired Annoic Nova variant in my Traveller game. But when GMing that I try to minimise the logistical aspects of the challenge - by saying "yes" to attempts to set up choke points and cover points where corridors intersect, and otherwise trying to very quickly establish details of the ship layout, whether walls run all the way to the ceiling etc - and make the exploration of the situation and its consequences loom larger (eg how many aliens are likely on the ship? what can be inferred about the mysterious cargo? _cool, you've taken off your vacc suit and are going to the upper floor on your own_, etc).


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> The only way it has anything to do with making a mistake is if the PCs don't want to fight the guards, or if they would prefer to enter quietly.



OK. So if we're agreed that the notion of "mistake" or "making the wrong choice" is basically inapposite, why are your bringing it up?

That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely puzzled as to where it's coming from and what you're trying to get at.

(As the thing about action resolution seems to have generated some more traffic I will read that before making a separate reply.)


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> All these variables mean _the only things I can legitimately write ahead of time are those things that are pretty much permanent_ - the buildings, their full-time occupants, and a scrap note or two on their ongoing interactions



But those things aren't permanent. In fact the whole set-up is premised on the fact that they can change - ie that the assassins can move into a new headquarters!


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> OK. So if we're agreed that the notion of "mistake" or "making the wrong choice" is basically inapposite, why are your bringing it up?
> 
> That's not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely puzzled as to where it's coming from and what you're trying to get at.




The notion of "mistake" or "wrong choice" isn't inapposite at all.

Making a mistake/wrong choice in the context of trying to get into the castle by way of the heavily-guarded main gate (if you'll allow that to be a mistake) isn't all that dissimilar from--going back in the direction of the situation in the original post--insulting a hypersensitive minor noble. There is a presumption that the PCs come across information to the effect that the gate is well-defended in the one case and that the noble is hypersensitve in the case of the other, so there is reason for them to expect that a frontal assault is not a path to likely success at getting into the castle, or that insulting the minor noble is a path to likely success at negotiating with him.

Much of the response to the OP seemed to me to be along the lines of "there should have been a way toward success that included insulting the Baron." If the PCs have information that the Baron reacts badly to being insulted, it seems to me that intentionally insulting him in the process of negotiating with hiim is a mistake, and should have consequences. This might not be a given person's preferred playstyle, but it doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable position. I'm not trying to argue whether there should be a path to success at negotiating with the Baron that involves insulting him--there at least can be; should is a matter of preference on several axes. I'm also not trying to argue whether the consequences in the OP are the right ones--again, that's probably a matter of preference with no actual right or wrong, just what works at a given table.


----------



## Fenris-77

@pemerton - Perhaps permanent until interacted with might be a better descriptor of what @Lanefan is getting at. Schrodinger's assassins.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> The notion of "mistake" or "wrong choice" isn't apposite at all.
> 
> Making a mistake/wrong choice in the context of trying to get into the castle by way of the heavily-guarded main gate (if you'll allow that to be a mistake) isn't all that dissimilar from--going back in the direction of the situation in the original post--insulting a hypersensitive minor noble. There is a presumption that the PCs come across information to the effect that the gate is well-defended in the one case and that the noble is hypersensitve in the case of the other, so there is reason for them to expect that a frontal assault is not a path to likely success at getting into the castle, or that insulting the minor noble is a path to likely success at negotiating with him.
> 
> Much of the response to the OP seemed to me to be along the lines of "there should have been a way toward success that included insulting the Baron." If the PCs have information that the Baron reacts badly to being insulted, it seems to me that intentionally insulting him in the process of negotiating with hiim is a mistake, and should have consequences. This might not be a given person's preferred playstyle, but it doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable position. I'm not trying to argue whether there should be a path to success at negotiating with the Baron that involves insulting him--there at least can be; should is a matter of preference on several axes. I'm also not trying to argue whether the consequences in the OP are the right ones--again, that's probably a matter of preference with no actual right or wrong, just what works at a given table.




Fundamentally, there's a larger difference between a heavily guarded gate where the PCs can count the foes and judge their capabilities and compare it to their own and make a judgement on how the resolution mechanics (combat in this case) are likely to turn out.  The information makes this a player-facing decision point -- can we beat up that many guards of that caliber with our extensively defined statistics?

The Burgomaster is not the same situation.  This situation is not player facing.  Even with information that the Burgomaster hates to be insulted, that's not something I can look at my abilities and determine what likelihood I might have in insulting the Burgomaster and still successfully completing my goal.  I can't know because that's locked behind GM decides.  If the GM refers to notes, and further such notes have hard coded outcomes for certain inputs, then this situation gets even worse, as I cannot know if this information about the Burgomaster's aversion to being insulted is something that is in play for a challenge or will absolutely result in a negative outcome no matter what.  I think a large part of the supposed player's frustration (assuming this is correct for the purpose of argument) might stem from this lack of being able to determine what the stakes and odds are.

The suggestion has been that you don't have to approach it like that -- nothing at all breaks if you actually test the action to insult the Burgomaster.  If you give the player a roll, it still works -- the Burgomaster can react poorly to being insulted, honoring that bit of the established fiction, but the player can still achieve their goal, honoring the success at the task.  In 5e, there's nothing that prevents you from saying, "Bob, the Burgomaster is known to react poorly to insults, so this tack seems like one that's pretty hard.  In fact, give me a hard DC check to see if you can get away with it."  Again, so long as you adjudicate by being grounded in the fiction and being genre appropriate, there's little that will harm the game.  That's all -- a suggestion that there's a way through that doesn't require hardcoding outcomes and that makes social encounters a bit more dynamic.  I also recommend using a skill challenge framework for successes vs failures.  Or a BitD clock.  Make the challenge require more than one success and you give yourself a lot more room for this kind of approach to smooth out much more nicely.


----------



## pemerton

Ovinomancer said:


> I think this gets right to the heart of things, and I snipped the rest.  Yes, those details do not exist.  Those possibilities do not exist.  But some other set of details and possibilities exists that do not if those do.  It's not 'these details or none in their place.'  That I put a different focus on my games as to where play occurs doesn't reduce the level of detail or the scope of possibilities -- I just have a different set of them.



A separate reply to this: _absolutely_.

I probaby have 20 to 30 years of RPGing left at max, which at my current rate is likely fewer than 500 sessions. I want to spend approximately zero of them on learning or narrating the catalogue of a curio shop.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> Action resolution is for resolving actions. It's not about making decisions (except in specific cases where it specifically is). Deciding to sneak by the guard is not the same thing as resolving the attempt to do so.



I was replying to your remark about a murder mystery, not about deciding to sneak past the guards.

But in either case, isn't action resolution - applied systematically over the course of play - the way that we find out whether or not the PCs made a poor or mistaken decision?



Ovinomancer said:


> For the guard, let's say the player decides they want to sneak past.  Cool, I don't have anything to do with this as a GM and it doesn't task me to narrate new fiction.  What does is when the player starts declaring actions for their character to actually do the deed.  Likely, there will be a few actions declared that I let auto-succeed, like moving through the town to where the guard is and taking up a starting locations.  This is action resolution, even if it's usually handled very informally, because the GM has to decide if it occurs like asked or if mechanics need to be involved or if it fails due to notes or whatever.



I've called out a few bits of your posts that I wanted to respond to.

For this one, I'd often treat getting to the gate as framing rather than action declaration. Unless a player particularly wants to get some advantage out of treating it as an action - less of an issue in D&D, but in other systems this coud be establishing some sort of augment eg for having a Superior Vantage Point.



Ovinomancer said:


> Genre appropriateness has been presented as an input into GM adjudication of action in the sense of if it's not present the GM can fail the declaration without engaging the action.  Like, not allowing someone to find a ray gun in the baron's closet, or asking a dragon to give away it's horde.  These are not genre appropriate to a 5e game and so the GM can use that heuristic to not consider them and fail them without consideration.



In a lot of these cases I don't even think of it as action resolution. The "genre filter" operates at a prior stage: we don't get to resolution because no permissible action has been declared.



Ovinomancer said:


> I don't see how it's the player's mistake if the GM frames only the gate and doesn't provide indications that the sewer might exist.  That's a GM mistake.  Not a horrible, end of game, terrible no good one, but the GM is responsible for outlining the basic options of play in scene framing in 5e.  This is a critical duty because the players cannot introduce new fiction, only the GM can, so it's the responsibility of the GM to make sure relevant fictional pathways are at least available through foreshadowing even if not immediately presented as obvious.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Oddly, I think this is much less true to not true at all for other games so much as it is for 5e (or other D&D).  The more the players can propose new fiction and the more the GM is constrained in resolution of action declarations, the less necessary it is to provide the options in framing.  I could frame a heavily guarded gate in other systems and be comfortable not providing any other avenues because the players can create them with action declarations.



Various versions of D&D have a Streetwise or Gather Information skill/ability (eg 4e, 3E, AD&D Oriental Adventures via the Yakuza class, even sages in AD&D and B/X). So even within the compass of D&D there can be action declarations that allow the players to try and expand the scope of future potential action declarations.

I have played with D&D GMs whose response to that sort of thing is to shut it down - ie the inquiries produce no new information or options, all the potential informants remain silent, etc. I personally regard that as terrible GMing.

I have also played with D&D GMs who don't shut this sort of thing down but string it out endlessly - leads lead to leads lead to leads lead to session after session of trying to "find the plot". I also regard that as awful.

Although D&D doesn't have the same sort of crisp framework as (say) Fate or Burning Wheel for handling this sort of stuff, I still think there are better and worse ways for a D&D GM to handle it, which relate to some of what we've been talking about in this thread like (i) does the GM treat his/her notes as "total" or as a springboard? and (ii) to what extent does the GM follow the fiction and the impetus of play?

To relate the above to the example at hand: if the GM narrates the guards, and hints at or foreshadows the sewer, what happens if the PCs start searching for a hidden postern they can enter through? I don't think there's a single best answer, because it's so contextual. If it looks like the players are themselves trying to string things out, or squib in some fashion, because they're having trouble screwing up their courage to try and enter the castle, then as a GM I think it can make sense to force them to confront the choice: _Come on, people, what's it going to be? The gate, or the sewer?_ But if there is something genuinely going on - eg one of the PCs is an engineer or architect and so has some special interest in finding and exploiting the postern - then I think the GM would do better to take it seriously and see where it goes.

(The engineer/architect PC is like my bakers and vintners from upthread.)



Ovinomancer said:


> It's only a mistake is the other available options have been determined by the GM to be failures regardless of approach.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Ultimately, though, 5e is GM decides, and that structure means that player attempting to introduce new fiction is always at the mercy of the GM, which is not conducive to the player's being able to rely on a consistent adjudication if the GM is rejecting introductions not through the mechanics but through their authority.  Unreliable mechanics like that are critically based on table dynamics and trust -- it's very easy to start to feel like you're playing "GM may I?"



I think this is why it makes sense to talk about principle and approaches that can make for a better or worse play experience. 4e D&D made the GM's job easier, because at a certai point responsibility for following the fiction and working out what happens gets passed off to the skill challenge framework. Whereas in the 5e context there is a risk that everything all the way up to the point of ultimate success or failure is GM decides. But I reckon there must be methods even in 5e for avoiding this - eg whether the postern is discovered or not can be put onto some sort of check or spell use or triggering of a background ability; there are guidelines for establishing encounters on the other side of the postern; etc.



prabe said:


> If there be things that cannot be made to work, attempting one of those is a mistake. Sure, one can narrate negative results on Ability Checks (in 5E) as mistakes--it's something I do from time to time--but that's not what I was talking about. Making a mistake while disarming a trap does not mean it was a mistake to try.



If the idea that the player has is genre and gameplay appropriate, then _cannot be made to work _seems to mean _doesn't fit with what the GM had in mind_. This is what I am focusing on; and I am saying that, in general, I think it can make for a bad play experience. Because it pushes play towards _working out what the GM has in mind _rather than _engaging and following the fiction_.

(To be clear: if we're playing OSR-ish/"skilled play" and we're talking about puzzling out the riddling statue, or the room of trapped demi-gods, or similar than it's a different kettle of fish. But most of this thread doesn't seem to be about that sort of play.)


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> @pemerton - Perhaps permanent until interacted with might be a better descriptor of what @Lanefan is getting at. Schrodinger's assassins.



Given the scorn that @Lanefan has heaped on "Schroedinger's fictional element" in past posts, I am hesitant to attribute that to him.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> The notion of "mistake" or "wrong choice" isn't inapposite at all.
> 
> Making a mistake/wrong choice in the context of trying to get into the castle by way of the heavily-guarded main gate (if you'll allow that to be a mistake) isn't all that dissimilar from--going back in the direction of the situation in the original post--insulting a hypersensitive minor noble.



I agree with @Ovinomancer's reply and so won't repeat. I'll just add one thing:

If the GM frames the guarded gate in a context where (i) the players (as their PCs) want to get inside the castle and (ii) the PCs are reasonably adept at combat, then if the fight breaks out I would regard it as fairly poor narrating just to cut to the PCs having lost the fight.

There are mechanics to work that out. And Ovinomancer explains how roughly parallel mechanics (DCs rather than AC; skill challenge or clock rather than hp-attrition) can be used in the social case.


----------



## Fenris-77

pemerton said:


> Given the scorn that @Lanefan has heaped on "Schroedinger's fictiona element" in past posts, I am hesitant to attribute that to him.



The schroedinger bit was more of a joke that anything else. Permanent until interacted with wasn't. I think that actually describes what he's doing pretty well. The assassins are where he puts them, at least until the players start poking around, at which point all bets are off. Not everyone sets things up like this, but it's pretty common.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> The Burgomaster is not the same situation.  This situation is not player facing.  Even with information that the Burgomaster hates to be insulted, that's not something I can look at my abilities and determine what likelihood I might have in insulting the Burgomaster and still successfully completing my goal.  I can't know because that's locked behind GM decides.  If the GM refers to notes, and further such notes have hard coded outcomes for certain inputs, then this situation gets even worse, as I cannot know if this information about the Burgomaster's aversion to being insulted is something is in play for a challenge or will absolutely result in a negative outcome no matter what.  I think a large part of the supposed player's frustration (assuming this is correct for the purpose of argument) might stem from this lack of being able to determine what the stakes and odds are.




So, you blithely blew right past the bit about there being information so the PCs would know the BurgerMaster was so sensitive and likely to respond so negatively to being insulted. In that case it would be player-facing, and the players would know that.



Ovinomancer said:


> The suggestion isn't that you don't have to approach it like that -- nothing at all breaks if you actually test the action to insult the Burgomaster.  If you give the player a roll, it still works -- the Burgomaster can react poorly to being insulted, honoring that bit of the established fiction, but the player can still achieve their goal, honoring the success at the task.  In 5e, there's nothing that prevents you from saying, "Bob, the Burgomaster is known to react poorly to insults, so this tack seems like one that's pretty hard.  In fact, give me a hard DC check to see if you can get away with it."  Again, so long as you adjudicate by being grounded in the fiction and being genre appropriate, there's little that will harm the game.  That's all -- a suggestion that there's a way through that doesn't require hardcoding outcomes and that makes social encounters a bit more dynamic.  I also recommend using a skill challenge framework for successes vs failures.  Or a BitD clock.  Make the challenge require more than one success and you give yourself a lot more room for this kind of approach to smooth out much more nicely.




My position is that giving the PCs information that the BurgerMaster reacts badly to being insulted, then letting the PCs succeed by insulting him (at a task other than making an enemy out of him) seems to me to violate the established fiction and to negate the consequences of the PCs' making a poor choice. Heck, I'd say the same thing if the PCs had the opportunity to learn about the BurgerMaster before negotiating with him, and didn't--that's a choice (arguably more than one choice) and there should be consequences for it. Sure, there's room for flexibility, but I think it's more warranted (in the case of insulting the BurgerMaster) if there's no way for the PCs to know before encountering him how he reacts to being insulted.


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> The schroedinger bit was more of a joke that anything else. Permanent until interacted with wasn't. I think that actually describes what he's doing pretty well. The assassins are where he puts them, at least until the players start poking around, at which point all bets are off. Not everyone sets things up like this, but it's pretty common.



Sure. But the point I was trying to make is that _it buys into a certain sort of approach which - _at least for me - _does not support depth or verisimilitude_. Because what it means is that narration leans towards those details written down ahead of time to help someone (ie the GM) frame a puzzle; rather than the narration actually evoking the situation and what matters to me as my PC. (Or, if I'm GMing, to me as the GM trying to bring the players into the fiction)

Notice also that @Lanefan makes a big deal of treating (say) time of day of arrival as a big deal that can't be anticipated in advance. Wheares there is actually nothing I can see about the framing of _We're looking for the assassins_ that makes the time of day matter (unless the PCs sneak in after dark deliberately; but then they're not going to see what all the shops are, nor notice the worn-away leatherworker's sign, either). The whole approach is one that prioritises _the map as game board _and also _the counting of squares moved _(and correlating that to the passage of in-game time) which may be fun for a certain sort of wargame-inspired play but to me doesn't help with veriimilitude or depth.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> My position is that giving the PCs information that the BurgerMaster reacts badly to being insulted, then letting the PCs succeed by insulting him (at a task other than making an enemy out of him) seems to me to violate the established fiction and to negate the consequences of the PCs' making a poor choice.



So if there are two ways in - the low-AC/hp kobolds and the high-AC/hp hobgoblins - and the players choose the latter, do they automatically lose?

If the answer is yes, to me that seems like poor GMing tantamount to railroading (at least in a typical D&D context).

If the answer is no, why should the social encounter be any different?


----------



## Fenris-77

@pemerton - I agree, it does buy into a certain kind of approach. It's not my personal approach, but it is quite common, and I'm not convinced it has to be bad at verisimilitude or depth either. I don't know how much it props wither of those things up particularly, or even that it's supposed to prop them up in every case. Some people just like to have some details written down because they aren't going to remember everything they want to, and aren't playing a completely play-to-find-out game, which D&D usually isn't. There's a huge premium on GM production of detail D&D I think it's unavoidable that notes and maps should be involved to a certain extent. That doesn't have to reduce the game to one played on a map as game board either, I think that's a really extreme example and probably not fair to what a lot of D&D DMs actually do, even if they make use of copious maps.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I was replying to your remark about a murder mystery, not about deciding to sneak past the guards.
> 
> But in either case, isn't action resolution - applied systematically over the course of play - the way that we find out whether or not the PCs made a poor or mistaken decision?




Action resolution can be a way to find that out, such as if they misjudge an opponent and end up fighting someone well above their pay grade. The decision to fight that someone might be a mistake, and there might not be an action resolution involved in the decision.

I don't think murder mysteries are a superb idea in TRPGs (in spite of apparently setting myself up to run one) but accusing the wrong person of murder is arguably a mistake. Doing so need not be the result of an action resolution. It's entirely possible for the players to come to the wrong conclusion/s in spite of succeeding at all the action resolutions. (I don't like either of the obvious options: having the person they accuse be the killer, lead them by the nose through the action resolutions.)


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> So if there are two ways in - the low-AC/hp kobolds and the high-AC/hp hobgoblins - and the players choose the latter, do they automatically lose?
> 
> If the answer is yes, to me that seems like poor GMing tantamount to railroading (at least in a typical D&D context).
> 
> If the answer is no, why should the social encounter be any different?




If out of multiple paths there's a path that leads to a likely bad outcome, and the PCs know that about that path, and the PCs choose that path, there's no railroading. Please note that I was explicit about this being something the PCs knew about, and that I'm in favor of being flexible about things they can't know about.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> So, you blithely blew right past the bit about there being information so the PCs would know the BurgerMaster was so sensitive and likely to respond so negatively to being insulted. In that case it would be player-facing, and the players would know that.



No, I incorporated that.  Unless the GM tells the players that this tidbit is fixed and immutable, it's just like saying that the knight at the gate is well known for his combat prowess, but not every doing more to quantify that.  Further, there's the issues of the PCs being outsiders, not one of the Burgomaster's subjects, and that they are clearly powerful in ways the townsfolk usually are not.  Saying that a person is so fixed in response that they will react in a way that may clearly cause harm to them up to and including death because they cannot abide being questioned on their ability to rule by a powerful outsider seems odd.  Especially since the way Vallaki is written is almost guaranteed to drive the players into conflict with the Burgomaster.

My personal experience with this module was as a player -- a very rare treat for me.  I had become very taxed at work and had little bandwidth left to GM, so one of my players offered to GM.  He's not comfortable at all at off-the-cuff social back and forth in general, but can hold his own.  About half-way through the first of the Baron's Sun Day festivals, as we as players began to discuss interfering with the whipping of "malcontents," he made one of the best decisions I've seen him make from behind the screen -- he dumped that storyline.  He saw that it was going to go straight to hell, and he wasn't comfortable with adjudicating a highly-charged social scene, so he made the decision that it wasn't important and was better off on the cutting room floor.  He asked if we'd be okay just ignoring this bit of play and letting him work on it.  We were fine -- we had to go save the winery anyway.  When we did return to Vallaki, the GM had altered things such that we did come into conflict with the Baron, but he wasn't at all like the write-up.  Still vain, but much more amenable to compromise.  Especially after his main henchman was confronted and killed in that confrontation for holding Irena captive -- something that the Baron wanted swept under the rug rather than made public.




> My position is that giving the PCs information that the BurgerMaster reacts badly to being insulted, then letting the PCs succeed by insulting him (at a task other than making an enemy out of him) seems to me to violate the established fiction and to negate the consequences of the PCs' making a poor choice. Heck, I'd say the same thing if the PCs had the opportunity to learn about the BurgerMaster before negotiating with him, and didn't--that's a choice (arguably more than one choice) and there should be consequences for it. Sure, there's room for flexibility, but I think it's more warranted (in the case of insulting the BurgerMaster) if there's no way for the PCs to know before encountering him how he reacts to being insulted.



This is actually one of the biggest issues I have with how the OP was presented -- we do not know what the goal of the action to insult the Burgomaster was.  I think that knowing the intent behind an action is absolutely critical to being able to properly adjudicate it.  That said, the information that the Burgomaster reacts badly to being insulted would tell me that this is a challenging way to move forward, but that this information should be able to be leveraged in some way.  If I try to browbeat him with insults, that's risky, but not automatic failure.  But, that assumption is probably because that's how I'd do it from the GM's seat.  An action to insult the Burgomaster may well even get advantage, if well framed to take advantage of the information.  For example, if my intention was to enrage the Burgomaster as part of an attempt to get him off balance so I could then intimidate him, leveraging the knowledge about insults seems an excellent way to do this and thus advantage.  

I also think that part of my willingness to view this the way I do is that I run social challenges under a multi-roll, multi-action framework, so a single action being hard or failing does not end the scene on it's own, unless that's the intent of the player.  If you want to start a fight as a player, okay, we can do that.  There are even cases where you could start a fight but not end the social engagement -- I ran that exact thing with a barfight my last session.  PC was in a social standoff with some thugs, started a fight, and used a quick beatdown of the leader to move back into an intimidation to cow the remaining thugs (who would likely have overwhelmed him with numbers).  Success!  The barfight he started continued on without him, but the thugs that were in his way backed off to find other people to fight.  In this case, I let the combat actions stand in as a success or two in the skill challenge (this was helped in that we didn't do a combat swoop into detailed combat, but instead looked at whether or not his character with the abilities he has (Gloomstalker/Assassin with Alert) would reasonably be able to defeat the thug quickly and brutally.  He could, so I hinged that on an attack roll.)


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> @pemerton - I agree, it does buy into a certain kind of approach. It's not my personal approach, but it is quite common, and I'm not convinced it has to be bad at verisimilitude or depth either. I don't know how much it props wither of those things up particularly, or even that it's supposed to prop them up in every case. Some people just like to have some details written down because they aren't going to remember everything they want to, and aren't playing a completely play-to-find-out game, which D&D usually isn't. There's a huge premium on GM production of detail D&D I think it's unavoidable that notes and maps should be involved to a certain extent. That doesn't have to reduce the game to one played on a map as game board either, I think that's a really extreme example and probably not fair to what a lot of D&D DMs actually do, even if they make use of copious maps.




If your play goal is to discover what the GM has prepared (a perfectly valid play goal that at least two of my players enjoy, though not exclusively), then having detailed notes and presenting those does go to a sort of verisimilitude -- the game is properly presenting the world that the players prefer.

If the play goal is not this, and more aligned with @pemerton's play goals (or in-between or varied, like mine), then this doesn't aid verisimilitude.

It very much depends on how you approach the game and what you want out of it as to how verisimilitude is even defined.  In the former, it's that there are extensive details about the world that I discover with skilled play.  In the latter, it's that the character is well integrated into the world and their struggles are paramount in play.  IE, that I have an experience where my character is challenged on their beliefs or goals, and I learn something about that character.


----------



## Fenris-77

Yeah, that sounds accurate. I was suggesting that it's more of a sliding scale than a binary, that's all.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> No, I incorporated that.  Unless the GM tells the players that this tidbit is fixed and immutable, it's just like saying that the knight at the gate is well known for his combat prowess, but not every doing more to quantify that.  Further, there's the issues of the PCs being outsiders, not one of the Burgomaster's subjects, and that they are clearly powerful in ways the townsfolk usually are not.  Saying that a person is so fixed in response that they will react in a way that may clearly cause harm to them up to and including death because they cannot abide being questioned on their ability to rule by a powerful outsider seems odd.  Especially since the way Vallaki is written is almost guaranteed to drive the players into conflict with the Burgomaster.




Apologies, but it does seem that you're at least kinda missing my point: If the PCs know that the gate is well-defended or that the BurgerMaster reacts badly to being insulted--to the same degree--then attacking that gate or insulting the BurgerMaster is a mistake in the same degree. I'm not talking about springing a "gotcha" on the PCs--I've specifically said that being more flexibility about things they cannot have known is important. There are clearly specific problems with this specific incident in this specific published adventure, but they don't really change my core position (that I can tell).



Ovinomancer said:


> My personal experience with this module was as a player -- a very rare treat for me.  I had become very taxed at work and had little bandwidth left to GM, so one of my players offered to GM.  He's not comfortable at all at off-the-cuff social back and forth in general, but can hold his own.  About half-way through the first of the Baron's Sun Day festivals, as we as players began to discuss interfering with the whipping of "malcontents," he made one of the best decisions I've seen him make from behind the screen -- he dumped that storyline.  He saw that it was going to go straight to hell, and he wasn't comfortable with adjudicating a highly-charged social scene, so he made the decision that it wasn't important and was better off on the cutting room floor.  He asked if we'd be okay just ignoring this bit of play and letting him work on it.  We were fine -- we had to go save the winery anyway.  When we did return to Vallaki, the GM had altered things such that we did come into conflict with the Baron, but he wasn't at all like the write-up.  Still vain, but much more amenable to compromise.  Especially after his main henchman was confronted and killed in that confrontation for holding Irena captive -- something that the Baron wanted swept under the rug rather than made public.




That does sound like an instance of good GMing. It sounds as though there's not a lot of support for running the BurgerMaster as an NPC in the published material, even though the adventure seems to point the PCs at interacting with him. Good on your GM for spotting that and getting table permission to come back to it later.



Ovinomancer said:


> This is actually one of the biggest issues I have with how the OP was presented -- we do not know what the goal of the action to insult the Burgomaster was.  I think that knowing the intent behind an action is absolutely critical to being able to properly adjudicate it.  That said, the information that the Burgomaster reacts badly to being insulted would tell me that this is a challenging way to move forward, but that this information should be able to be leveraged in some way.  If I try to browbeat him with insults, that's risky, but not automatic failure.  But, that assumption is probably because that's how I'd do it from the GM's seat.  An action to insult the Burgomaster may well even get advantage, if well framed to take advantage of the information.  For example, if my intention was to enrage the Burgomaster as part of an attempt to get him off balance so I could then intimidate him, leveraging the knowledge about insults seems an excellent way to do this and thus advantage.




The impression I got was that there wasn't a goal to insulting the BurgerMaster--it was just a barb from the peanut gallery that blew up the negotiation. I suppose I can someone playing a skilled negotiator (probably a skilled player) roleplaying the negotiation out, and having some insults there as part of it--as someone who's been known to have people roll Diplomacy (in a different system) to make an insult really stick, I'm clear on the idea of not giving unintentional offense--but that's different from a PC who's kinda uninvolved just throwing an apparently-random insult into the mix. Trying to insult him as part of getting into his good graces, though--that's probably an error.



Ovinomancer said:


> I also think that part of my willingness to view this the way I do is that I run social challenges under a multi-roll, multi-action framework, so a single action being hard or failing does not end the scene on it's own, unless that's the intent of the player.  If you want to start a fight as a player, okay, we can do that.  There are even cases where you could start a fight but not end the social engagement -- I ran that exact thing with a barfight my last session.  PC was in a social standoff with some thugs, started a fight, and used a quick beatdown of the leader to move back into an intimidation to cow the remaining thugs (who would likely have overwhelmed him with numbers).  Success!  The barfight he started continued on without him, but the thugs that were in his way backed off to find other people to fight.  In this case, I let the combat actions stand in as a success or two in the skill challenge (this was helped in that we didn't do a combat swoop into detailed combat, but instead looked at whether or not his character with the abilities he has (Gloomstalker/Assassin with Alert) would reasonably be able to defeat the thug quickly and brutally.  He could, so I hinged that on an attack roll.)




None of that sounds unreasonable, from any direction. I persist in thinking that none of us still bothering with this are bad GMs, and that we're really just arguing around the edges, and that the nature of talking about this stuff on the Internet makes us sound more divergent approach than we really are.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> Yeah, that sounds accurate. I was suggesting that it's more of a sliding scale than a binary, that's all.



Oh, definitely, but it's easier to talk about the ends first, so we know the scope of the scale.  I also don't think it's uniform -- this scale is lumpy as heck.


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> Oh, definitely, but it's easier to talk about the ends first, so we know the scope of the scale.  I also don't think it's uniform -- this scale is lumpy as heck.



Yup, it's a lumpy gym sock for sure. We're on the same page.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> Apologies, but it does seem that you're at least kinda missing my point: If the PCs know that the gate is well-defended or that the BurgerMaster reacts badly to being insulted--to the same degree--then attacking that gate or insulting the BurgerMaster is a mistake in the same degree. I'm not talking about springing a "gotcha" on the PCs--I've specifically said that being more flexibility about things they cannot have known is important. There are clearly specific problems with this specific incident in this specific published adventure, but they don't really change my core position (that I can tell).



We may be talking past each other, because I also feel like you're missing my point -- the information about the guarded gate is much more player-facing than the information about the Burgomaster.  Unless social encounters function similarly to combat encounters, these things cannot be analogous.

If, instead, you're discussing a guarded gate that the GM has determined to be impossible no matter what and a Burgomaster that responds to insults in a fixed way no matter what, then, yes, I can agree those situations are analogous.  And that they should be avoided.




> That does sound like an instance of good GMing. It sounds as though there's not a lot of support for running the BurgerMaster as an NPC in the published material, even though the adventure seems to point the PCs at interacting with him. Good on your GM for spotting that and getting table permission to come back to it later.



He's my best friend and I've told this to him directly, but he's not actually allowed to GM anymore by group acclaim.  This one example was an example of him doing it well, but, overall, he's not very good at it.  That may be why this example stands out for me -- I was darned proud of him for this one.  We got through the whole module, but it wasn't always pretty.



> The impression I got was that there wasn't a goal to insulting the BurgerMaster--it was just a barb from the peanut gallery that blew up the negotiation. I suppose I can someone playing a skilled negotiator (probably a skilled player) roleplaying the negotiation out, and having some insults there as part of it--as someone who's been known to have people roll Diplomacy (in a different system) to make an insult really stick, I'm clear on the idea of not giving unintentional offense--but that's different from a PC who's kinda uninvolved just throwing an apparently-random insult into the mix. Trying to insult him as part of getting into his good graces, though--that's probably an error.



There's always a goal.  Always.

As for unintentional offense -- happens quite often in my games, as a result of a failed check.  I don't tend to write NPCs with "if/then" statements.




> None of that sounds unreasonable, from any direction. I persist in thinking that none of us still bothering with this are bad GMs, and that we're really just arguing around the edges, and that the nature of talking about this stuff on the Internet makes us sound more divergent approach than we really are.



Yup, but those edges can be very interesting!


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> Yup, it's a lumpy gym sock for sure. We're on the same page.



Not to be contrary, but I don't want to be one the same page as gym socks!


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> Not to be contrary, but I don't want to be one the same page as gym socks!



Facing pages or obverse at worst, I put in a section break right after the socks.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> We may be talking past each other, because I also feel like you're missing my point -- the information about the guarded gate is much more player-facing than the information about the Burgomaster.  Unless social encounters function similarly to combat encounters, these things cannot be analogous.
> 
> If, instead, you're discussing a guarded gate that the GM has determined to be impossible no matter what and a Burgomaster that responds to insults in a fixed way no matter what, then, yes, I can agree those situations are analogous.  And that they should be avoided.




The information about the guarded gate isn't necessarily all that player-facing, just looking at the gate. It might (in 5E) be difficult at best to tell more than numbers, and numbers alone wouldn't make the gate impassible. I feel as though I've been explicit that the PCs should be able to determine how well the gate is guarded, and how sensitive the BurgerMaster is--otherwise it's a complete "gotcha," and I don't do those. I'll grant that the mechanics of combat are more player-facing than the mechanics of social interactions, but that's not the same thing.

I'm not a huge fan of absolute descriptors, but I don't think that having a gate guarded by a force the PCs cannot defeat or having an NPC with a hard-coded reaction will inevitably be bad; it comes to being sure the PCs have information to make well-thought-out decisions. I think you and I have different positions on this.



Ovinomancer said:


> There's always a goal.  Always.
> 
> As for unintentional offense -- happens quite often in my games, as a result of a failed check.  I don't tend to write NPCs with "if/then" statements.




In the OP's example, there seemed to be competing contradictory player goals, or the player whose character did the insulting had the goal of disrupting the negotiation attempt. When player goals diverge, especially from character goals, it seems to me as though there's an out-of-game problem among the players.

As to unintentional offense--that doesn't seem likely here, and my comment was a light-hearted spin on the line about diplomacy being the art of not giving unintentional offense (which line is my reason for using a Diplomacy skill to nail an insult).


----------



## Campbell

*Side Note :* I find it immensely helpful when folks take the effort to specify when they are referring to the player and when they are referring to the character instead of using PC for either.

*On Prep*
On these boards we often speak to prep as if it were monolithic. There are all kinds and degrees to which we hold to it. I am a firm believer in what Apocalypse World calls *"Always say what your prep demands"* with the caveat that some sorts of prep are less demanding. When I run B/X, other OSR games, and Pathfinder Second Edition I utilize keyed maps for adventure locations including notes on traps, other features, wandering monster tables, and general creature locations (that is more fluid). I play, but will not run Fifth Edition anymore. Generally I am a lot more fluid with down time. Time and space are tracked far less rigorously.

I do not generally focus too much mysteries that *have to be solved*. In general I prefer play where the characters are awash in information rather than one in which they are fumbling around in the dark. Instead I prefer games where there is a variety of information that is meaningfully knowable that can be leveraged by players so their characters receive certain advantages.

I hold to my prep, but I try to be extremely disciplined about how I prep. I aim to only prepare the challenge and never the solution. I aim to prepare situation and never story. I will not weigh in on if it is railroading or not, but I dislike it when GMs attempt to establish fiction with the aim of trying to exert control over the actions player declare for their characters. I also am not overly interested in setting tourism.


----------



## Campbell

So there are a couple of approaches to action resolution that I feel are getting mixed up.

In this model the action resolution mechanics tell us how well a character performed a particular action. A high roll means you swung true. A low roll means you whiffed. The GM determines the impact in the fiction based on their internal knowledge of the fiction / game state.
In this model the action resolution mechanics tell us *what happens*. We assume your character did an awesome job because they know what their doing. If they did not achieve their objective something got in the way. Maybe that orc warrior raised his shield at the last minute. Maybe the lock jammed because rust has grown on it. Certain details of the fiction are left open and defined on the basis of the roll. Maybe your attempts to sway the corrupt noble do not work because he knows your reputation, You are too devoted to your god to really sink that low.

You might prefer one model to the other, but we should not assume action resolution mechanics always work one way under all circumstance.


----------



## Campbell

pemerton said:


> If you wanted to elaborate on those differences I'd be happy for you to do so.
> 
> My first thoughts are that (i) I rate passion/conviction very highly as a factor in resolution, and (ii) I'm very sentimental. These are probably not unrelated.
> 
> Upthread I posted the example of the PC who challenged Sir Lionheart tried to a joust, was turnd down on the basis that he was just a squire and Sir Lionheart does not joust with squires, and then tried to brush past Sir Lionheart. At that point we rolled Presence vs Presence, the player (for his PC) won, and hence he got what he wanted: Sir Lionheart knighted him so he could joust him.
> 
> I wouldn't characterise that as skilled play of the fiction. I would say it's engaged play of the tropes and the passions/convictions of the characters (both PC - his desire to be knighted - and NPC - his sense of honour and glory).
> 
> I'm guessing that that sort of thing wouldn't necessarily be a big part of your (@Campbell's) play.
> 
> When eventually (!) I get to GM Apocalypse World, which forces the GM to be unsentimentally hard, I'm going to be interested to seee how it goes.




I find that I am at times phenomenally sentimental and at other times profoundly cynical. My own sentimentality is why I find it so important to be disciplined in my prep and while actively running the game.

You are right in that I do not rate generally rate conviction high as a factor in resolution, but I think it probably comes down to a difference in the type of fiction we prefer. In general I prefer fiction with characters who are driven by their passions, convictions, and other impulses. However those impulses are not meant to be viewed uncritically and can often lead to poor decisions. Most of the games I look to for more character driven play have an element of tragedy to them : Vampire 5th Edition, Sorcerer, Blades in the Dark, Apocalypse World, Monster Hearts, Bite Marks, Exalted Third Edition. We are fans of these characters in the sense that we cannot wait to see how their journey goes. We often hope for the best for them, but we do not root for them in the same way that we root for Superman or Captain America.

For character driven play I do like to see experience rewards for playing driven characters and basically acting like a protagonist. I also like when character effort matters to resolution like it does in Blades or Exalted.

In a number of places a character's convictions have a significant impact in Exalted. It is often a double edged sword in that those passions can be used against you and going against your passions can trigger your Great Curse which might lead to Greek Tragedy level events. Also they might be negative as well as positive. Hatred counts as much as love.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> But those things aren't permanent. In fact the whole set-up is premised on the fact that they can change - ie that the assassins can move into a new headquarters!



At considerable inconvenience to themselves, I suppose they could - but that'd likely be the desperation option were they to find themselves facing a known threat beyond their means to handle.

The set-up kind of assumes the guild are at least for the time being established in their guildhouse and that it suits their needs (otherwise, why are they there); and thus would be highly unlikely to move* within the few days or weeks it'll likely take the PCs to do their investigations.  And even then the description of the street itself wouldn't change (small chance the Curio Shop closes for good, I suppose); and the orphans would know the guild had left and maybe even where they went, because city kids always know everything. 

* - about the only thing that'd trigger a full-scale move might be if the Assassins got wind of the PCs as a threat and mistakenly overestimated the danger by a huge amount.  Very unlikely.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> I probaby have 20 to 30 years of RPGing left at max, which at my current rate is likely fewer than 500 sessions.



Need to pick up the pace there, old fellow!  Getting it to 50 sessions a year would give you 1000 or more still coming...


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> I have played with D&D GMs whose response to that sort of thing is to shut it down - ie the inquiries produce no new information or options, all the potential informants remain silent, etc. I personally regard that as terrible GMing.



I agree this is awful.



> I have also played with D&D GMs who don't shut this sort of thing down but string it out endlessly - leads lead to leads lead to leads lead to session after session of trying to "find the plot". I also regard that as awful.



I don't agree that this is awful, as long as there's some underlying logic to it all - maybe the PCs just happened to take the long way around to getting the info they really needed.



> To relate the above to the example at hand: if the GM narrates the guards, and hints at or foreshadows the sewer, what happens if the PCs start searching for a hidden postern they can enter through? I don't think there's a single best answer, because it's so contextual. If it looks like the players are themselves trying to string things out, or squib in some fashion, because they're having trouble screwing up their courage to try and enter the castle, then as a GM I think it can make sense to force them to confront the choice: _Come on, people, what's it going to be? The gate, or the sewer?_ But if there is something genuinely going on - eg one of the PCs is an engineer or architect and so has some special interest in finding and exploiting the postern - then I think the GM would do better to take it seriously and see where it goes.



I think the GM should take it seriously, and even if she already knows from her notes that the old postern was bricked up years ago, play through the PCs investigations until they learn this for themselves.

And at that point maybe the PCs come up with a bright idea as to how to get through a bricked-up postern in a way that doesn't raise too much fuss; and if they do (and if things work out for them) that's cool!  But it won't be without risk... 



> If the idea that the player has is genre and gameplay appropriate, then _cannot be made to work _seems to mean _doesn't fit with what the GM had in mind_. This is what I am focusing on; and I am saying that, in general, I think it can make for a bad play experience. Because it pushes play towards _working out what the GM has in mind _rather than _engaging and following the fiction_.



Thing is, to some people those are the same thing.

The fiction is in the GM's mind, thus working it out is simply another step in engaging and following said fiction.



> (To be clear: if we're playing OSR-ish/"skilled play" and we're talking about puzzling out the riddling statue, or the room of trapped demi-gods, or similar than it's a different kettle of fish. But most of this thread doesn't seem to be about that sort of play.)



There's three pillars of play - 5e codifed them really well - and one of those in a way is almost completely a matter of puzzle-solving; that being exploration (and exploration also includes investigation and info-gathering).

Downplaying or removing puzzle-solving largely guts one of the three pillars.  Why would anyone do this?

Sometimes social interaction also involves puzzle-solving e.g. the riddling statue, but it's less common there.  Combat itself rarely if ever involves puzzle-solving, though the pre-planning and run-up to it often can.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Given the scorn that @Lanefan has heaped on "Schroedinger's fictional element" in past posts, I am hesitant to attribute that to him.



So am I, to be honest. 

No, the Assassins are where they are; and it's up to the PCs to (try to) figure out where they are.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Sure. But the point I was trying to make is that _it buys into a certain sort of approach which - _at least for me - _does not support depth or verisimilitude_. Because what it means is that narration leans towards those details written down ahead of time to help someone (ie the GM) frame a puzzle; rather than the narration actually evoking the situation and what matters to me as my PC. (Or, if I'm GMing, to me as the GM trying to bring the players into the fiction)
> 
> Notice also that @Lanefan makes a big deal of treating (say) time of day of arrival as a big deal that can't be anticipated in advance.



Let me ask: were you framing this scene would you even consider the weather?  The time of day?  The season of the year?  Local variables such as holidays or market days?

More importantly, would you lay these out to the players and allow them to use that info to inform how and-or when they were going to approach their investigations?



> Wheares there is actually nothing I can see about the framing of _We're looking for the assassins_ that makes the time of day matter (unless the PCs sneak in after dark deliberately; but then they're not going to see what all the shops are, nor notice the worn-away leatherworker's sign, either). The whole approach is one that prioritises _the map as game board _and also _the counting of squares moved _(and correlating that to the passage of in-game time) which may be fun for a certain sort of wargame-inspired play but to me doesn't help with veriimilitude or depth.



It's a pretty shallow world that has no changing weather, or turning seasons, or other such basic things that serve to set the tone and atmosphere of any outdoor situation.

Also, "we're looking for the Assassins" is just a bit (as in, a whole lot!) too broad to be a useful declaration of anything.  I'd want to drill rather deeply into how they were looking, and where, and when, and who they were talking to; and then start roleplaying some of this out.


----------



## Lanefan

Campbell said:


> *Side Note :* I find it immensely helpful when folks take the effort to specify when they are referring to the player and when they are referring to the character instead of using PC for either.



For my part, if I say PC I mean character, if I say player I mean player, and in cases where I mean both at once it'll say player/PC or PC/player. 



> *On Prep*
> When I run B/X, other OSR games, and Pathfinder Second Edition I utilize keyed maps for adventure locations including notes on traps, other features, wandering monster tables, and general creature locations (that is more fluid). I play, but will not run Fifth Edition anymore. *Generally I am a lot more fluid with down time. Time and space are tracked far less rigorously.*



Ditto here on the bolded bit. We often call it "rubber time" due to its immense flexibility. 



> I do not generally focus too much mysteries that *have to be solved*. In general I prefer play where the characters are awash in information rather than one in which they are fumbling around in the dark. Instead I prefer games where there is a variety of information that is meaningfully knowable that can be leveraged by players so their characters receive certain advantages.



I also prefer they be awash in information, with the caveat that not all of that information is necessarily going to be accurate or truthful.

Put another way, once in a while leveraging your information might put you at a disadvantage you didn't expect. 



> I hold to my prep, but I try to be extremely disciplined about how I prep. I aim to only prepare the challenge and never the solution. I aim to prepare situation and never story. I will not weigh in on if it is railroading or not, but I dislike it when GMs attempt to establish fiction with the aim of trying to exert control over the actions player declare for their characters. I also am not overly interested in setting tourism.



I prepare the challenge and usually at least one solution, but if they find a different solution then good for them. 

What you call 'setting tourism' I call exploration; and that's part of the fun for me: learning about this whole new world I get to play around in.  (which is why a DM using an established setting is always a bit of a letdown, as oftentimes I-as-player have already explored it thus much of the newness is gone)


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> it does buy into a certain kind of approach. It's not my personal approach, but it is quite common, and I'm not convinced it has to be bad at verisimilitude or depth either. I don't know how much it props wither of those things up particularly, or even that it's supposed to prop them up in every case.



Well I was replying to this:

​


Fanaelialae said:


> What you call dross, I see as a rich tapestry of detail intended to draw the player into the world, rather than to mislead them.​​I'm fully willing to accept that your idea of verisimilitude might be different from mine. There's nothing wrong with that. Different people enjoy different styles of play. However, I'm more confident than ever that I'd be able to easily tell the difference.​​



​If you go back to that post, and what it was replying to, you'll be able to see that it was an argument that the kind of detail of a street that I'm reacting against is something that contributes to depth and versimilitude and draws players in.

And that's what I'm disagreeing with.



Fenris-77 said:


> Some people just like to have some details written down because they aren't going to remember everything they want to, and aren't playing a completely play-to-find-out game, which D&D usually isn't.



Sure. But to what end? Upthread @Lanefan said it took him little time to come up with that. So what is the contribution to gameplay of setting it all out like that in advance of play?



Fenris-77 said:


> There's a huge premium on GM production of detail D&D I think it's unavoidable that notes and maps should be involved to a certain extent. That doesn't have to reduce the game to one played on a map as game board either, I think that's a really extreme example and probably not fair to what a lot of D&D DMs actually do, even if they make use of copious maps.



Again, to what end? What is this GM-produced detail, encoded in these maps and notes, _for_?

Let's just go back to the _time of day of arrival_. In the fiction, there could be any number of reasons why the travel takes + or - N hours. Which means it is no more nor less realistic or verisimilitudinous for the PCs to arrive in the morning, at noon, or in the evening. Yet in much D&D play that is not treated just as a matter of framing. The travel is counted out on maps using miles-per-day charts and no one ever twists an ankle, or has a horse throw a shoe, or otherwise have their travel time be less than near-metrenomic. Why? What is this bringing to the table? Certainly (in my view, at least) not depth or verisimilitude!


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> Most of the games I look to for more character driven play have an element of tragedy to them
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Hatred counts as much as love.



I don't feel that Prince Valiant has much of an element of tragedy. And hatred doesn't really count as much as love.

The only system I currently play that I think has room for tragedy is Burning Wheel. That's part of what makes it a demanding game compared to eg Prince Valiant, Cortex+ Heroic or 4e D&D.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> The fiction is in the GM's mind



This claim is highly contentious. I would say - _if the fiction is in the GM's mind, why am I as a player bothering to turn up?_


----------



## Fenris-77

@pemerton - Well, this is specifically @Lanefan 's prep, not mine, so I'd only be speculating about the use. It's not my personal taste in prep, which is much more in line with yours I think. I can sympathize with wanting some details to refer to if you don't feel you're good at making it up on the spot though, or if you want to ensure that certain details remain constant. IDK.

You keep making these statements about what D&D 'is', like your reference to travel above. I don't get it. D&D has rules for travel mishaps, getting lost, and all sorts of things. To play it like you describe is to ignore all the rules and suggestions in the core books. You can elide travel time, but that is by no means unique to D&D, and not an idea that really reflects the presence or absence of verisimilitude. Without a deadline for arrival there's no pressing need to detail the journey at all unless it's adding something to the fiction, which it might or might not depending on the game and genre expectations.


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> You keep making these statements about what D&D 'is', like your reference to travel above. I don't get it. D&D has rules for travel mishaps, getting lost, and all sorts of things. To play it like you describe is to ignore all the rules and suggestions in the core books. You can elide travel time, but that is by no means unique to D&D, and not an idea that really reflects the presence or absence of verisimilitude. Without a deadline for arrival there's no pressing need to detail the journey at all unless it's adding something to the fiction, which it might or might not depending on the game and genre expectations.



My point is that the ostensible reason given for laying out the building and occupants of the street, but not the pie vendor or curio vendor who will engage the PCs, was that the latter can't be done because we don't know what time the PCs will arrive.

Whereas in fact we can almost certainly make the time of the PCs' arrival a simple matter of framing. (The _almost _is there because sometimes the players will have a particular reason to want their PCs to arrive at time X rather than time Y, which makes it something to be determined by action resolution if it's not just obvious that they can do it.)

In the post you quote I said the following: "Yet in much D&D play that is not treated just as a matter of framing. The travel is counted out on maps using miles-per-day charts and no one ever twists an ankle, or has a horse throw a shoe, or otherwise have their travel time be less than near-metrenomic." Do you disagree with this? What, then, are all those hex-marks and movement rates for?

As far as mishaps are concerned: I've played a fair bit of D&D and I've never had a GM tell me that I've twisted my ankle, or that my horse threw a shoe. (Whereas I have had issues with being lost: this goes back to the hex-crawl origins of the outdoor travel aspect of the game.)

Not too far upthread you said the following about your use of maps:



> NPCs and physical spaces don't play the same way, or at least I don't use them the same way. I don't usually bother with physical maps for anything smaller than a real dungeon, and even then, I don't really see the connections of the physical space as something that limits player choice in a negative way. I mean obviously it does limit choice, when there are only two corridors you have only two choices, but that seems trivially obvious. Maybe it's because I don't have room contents in the way that a published module does that I'm struggling here. My 'dungeons' tend to have sorts of inhabitants, and sorts of possible treasure, and there may be some loosely strung together encounters, but those aren't tied to rooms. The idea that X is waiting in room Y has never made any sense to me, as it makes the place enormously static rather than responsive to the players actions. As soon as the players hit a dungeon, the inhabitants are in motion, and where the players might encounter X, Y or Z, has everything to do with their choices and nothing to do with the map. My maps are just a tool to keep me colouring inside the lines when it comes to obeying the laws of physics, really.




I'm not 100% sure I follow the metaphor of "colouring inside the lines" but I take you to be saying that the map informs your narration. This seems similar to how in my Prince Valiant session today I Googled up a map of Romania, Bulgaria and Anatolia so that I could make sure what I described about the PCs' movements on their way across Dacia to Constantinople would make rough geographic sense.

That is maps as mere colour. Nothing more. They have no significance for action resolution and impose no meaningful constraints on action declaration. (Of course a wall, say, or a forest will constrain action declaration; but you don't need maps to narrate terrain and geography and architecture.)

I have not seen a single D&D module ever that proposes using maps in that sort of way. Nor have I ever seen a D&D ruleset set up to use them like that except 4e, because it an use a skill challenge to actually resolve the journey, with the colour of the map being used to inform the resulting narration. When I say that _in much D&D play travel is counted out on maps_ I'm drawing on my own play experience, my reading of many D&D modules over the years, my reading of various D&D rulebooks (even 4e has a miles-per-day chart because the authors of the PHB didn't integrate their mechanical elements into the skill challenge resolution framework), and what I see posted online.

If your approach was typical I would expect to see it reflected somewhere in the official materials. But I don't.


----------



## pemerton

On the topic of social conlict: my session today (of Prince Valiant) had three main ones.

* When the PCs arrived in Constantinople, feted as dragon slayers, they did homage before the Emperor and were bestowed with great gifts. When in due course they headed off into Anatolia, the wife of one of the PCs was invited to stay behind in the entourage of the Empress. At first the PC in question inclined to think this was a good idea, but then he got anxious that he couldn't trust himself (he is in fact in love with another woman, although she is currently in Toulouse) and perhaps not his wife either: so he tried to persuade her to travel with him. This was his Presence + Fellowship against her Presence + Glamourie. He succeeded, and she agreed to travel with him. This turned out to be handy, because later on in the session the PCs needed to haggle over the price of a debt that they were purchasing, and the PC's wife was the only in their entourage with Money Handling skill. She was able to get them a good price (one-and-a-half pennies in the shilling).​​* While travelling in Anatolia the PCs agreed to help a local count, too impecunious to field an effective force (he was the debtor whose debts the PCs ended up buying), to fight off an incursion of Huns. Taking council in the evening, they agreed on a plan of attack for the next day. But the count insisted on leading the charge himself. The PCs didn't want this - given the smaller number of their warband compared to the Huns they wanted to be in command themselves (two of the PCs have quite high Battle skill ratings). So an argument ensued - Presence + Courtesie on both side, though with the PC taking a penalty because he was not being fully courteous given that (as the count pointed out) it was the count's land and the count's cause that was at issue. The PC lost the argument and agreed to let the count lead the charge on the morrow. The PCs went on to circumvent this agreement by taking their forces out on a night raid against the Huns, which ended up working spectactularly well.​​* While the count and the PC commanders were arguing in the tent about who would lead the charge, the third PC heard a commotion outside among the levies and camp followers. He went out to see what was going on. A middle-aged camp follower was denouncing the count as hopeless and unable to properly provision and equip his levies - hence, she predicted, they would lose on the morrow. The PC atttempted to bully her into silence by insulting her, and this was resolved as a competition of his Presence vs her Presence + Oratory. (The PC has no Oratory skill.) The camp follower won this debate, and so the PC returned to the command tent and readily agreed that the PCs would be better off undertaking a night raid then trying to rely on any useful help from the count.​
There were some other social checks - one of the PCs made a good impression when the group arrived at the Byzantine border on the Black Sea coast, and the same PC helped the members of the PCs' warband remain calm when the vessel they were travelling on was assaulted by a "dragon" (a giant crocodile). That PC has the best Oratory of the group, and it's partly for that reason that he is Marshall of their Order. But those weren't conflicts as such.

EDIT: I probably should include this information, namely, descriptors for the relevant NPCs:

_Elizabeth of York_: Gullible about knights and noblemen (hence her desire to spend time in the retinue of the Empress);

_Count Aethelred_, a Goth in Byzantine Anatolia: Proud but not haughty, honest, merciful, trusting;

_Cameh_ the camp-follower: Independent, melancholic, relentless in holding the count responsible for the state of his levies.


----------



## Fenris-77

@pemerton - No, my approach isn't typical at all, and I wasn't suggesting that your comments struck me as odd because they didn't describe my game, only because they didn't describe a lot of D&D games.

Outdoor maps and movements rates are to determine how long, on average, it will take to get from A to B. Nothing more, nothing less is inherently specified. What A DM actually does with that can vary quite a bit of course. The standard answer is to roll X number of random wilderness encounters on chart Y based on terrain and duration of travel. Some times it's just to say _it takes two week to get there_.  Sometimes there's a whole spectrum of adventure, possibly even including the throwing of a shoe. Even inside the core rules there are different ways to handle travel and maps, and once you take into account the various 3PP resources for the same there's a pretty wide range. I'd agree that hand waving travel is common of course, but it's not standard. To come back to your question, what are they for, the actual answer is something like _whatever you need them for_.

As for the quote about my map use, I'll be specific, I was talking about dungeon and location maps there, not country maps for travel. Colouring inside the lines there is just about not ending up with two rooms occupying the same space by mistake. That sounds a lot like your use of Anatolia. Other than that I think I narrate much the same way you do - the map doesn't dictate action declaration other occasionally based on options about direction, or the other barrier type things that would, I think fall under your definition of terrain and architecture. I might have a list of things I can populate a given space with, a list usually generated with evocative description in mind, and I'll have a list of monsters that could appear, possibly a neat custom treasure or two, and maybe some notes about factions if the place is big enough. The bigger the dungeon, the more I'd consider some brief notes about factions and ecology. Those notes aren't generally tied to specific locations on the map though, unless there's an element that calls for a specific treatment, like a dragon in a lair, rather than hanging out in a 10x10 room guarding a cupcake (genre conventions and whatnot). The notes are more like crib notes to expand on as the fiction provides the appropriate space.

And no, that isn't how D&D suggests DMs use dungeon maps, it's far more informed by my running and playing other more fiction forward games. I also don't _always_ do things this way either. If I'm running a module I'll take what it gives me and freelance off that and use the map I'm given. It depends on the game, the process I describe above is for my own stuff.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> The information about the guarded gate isn't necessarily all that player-facing, just looking at the gate. It might (in 5E) be difficult at best to tell more than numbers, and numbers alone wouldn't make the gate impassible. I feel as though I've been explicit that the PCs should be able to determine how well the gate is guarded, and how sensitive the BurgerMaster is--otherwise it's a complete "gotcha," and I don't do those. I'll grant that the mechanics of combat are more player-facing than the mechanics of social interactions, but that's not the same thing.
> 
> I'm not a huge fan of absolute descriptors, but I don't think that having a gate guarded by a force the PCs cannot defeat or having an NPC with a hard-coded reaction will inevitably be bad; it comes to being sure the PCs have information to make well-thought-out decisions. I think you and I have different positions on this.



Not where it appears you think we do.  The last paragraph I largely agree with.  The issue might be that I think that if you do the last thing, it needs to be 100% explicitly clear.  I cannot foreshadow this and expect the PCs to investigate to find it out.  So long as we're in saying things like, "gang, if you insult the Burgomaster, he'll react violently, no matter what.  He's deeply unstable and a bit crazy, and this is his representation of that."  However, I, and I think others, might not like such explicit statements as part of our game.  I don't like them because I'd rather not have such closed avenues.  Others might not like them because they are 'unearned' by PC actions.  So, as most will play, that kind of explicit statement won't really be something that occurs, instead it'll be softer and greyer and less clear, which leads to the GM thinking they made it clear enough but the players not getting the message and you're right back in gotcha territory, just unintentionally.




> In the OP's example, there seemed to be competing contradictory player goals, or the player whose character did the insulting had the goal of disrupting the negotiation attempt. When player goals diverge, especially from character goals, it seems to me as though there's an out-of-game problem among the players.
> 
> As to unintentional offense--that doesn't seem likely here, and my comment was a light-hearted spin on the line about diplomacy being the art of not giving unintentional offense (which line is my reason for using a Diplomacy skill to nail an insult).



I'm 100% fine with competing contradictory player goals, so that's not a problem I see.  If you're into homogeneous party goals, as I believe you've said you are, then this is definitely an out-of-play issue, not an in-play issue.  I can't talk to that, aside from recommending it be dealt with away from table, but I can talk about how a competing goal action declaration can still work in play.

Of course, we don't know the insulting player's goal, we're left to guess.  It might very well have been to disrupt the negotiation, but I can see a number of good reasons to do that, depending on what's being negotiated.  We don't know that the negotiating players weren't acting unilaterally.  So much that we can only guess at in the OP that I'm trying to not to and just present play examples that illustrate my approach that at least start in the same place as the OP's.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Sure. But to what end? Upthread @Lanefan said it took him little time to come up with that. So what is the contribution to gameplay of setting it all out like that in advance of play?



If it's just for me, it's so I'll have a better chance of coherently remembering what I had in mind when I thought of it.

If it's for someone else, it gives a location-based framework for a DM to build on and with any luck provides some ideas and inspiration as to what said DM might want to do with it.



> Let's just go back to the _time of day of arrival_. In the fiction, there could be any number of reasons why the travel takes + or - N hours. Which means it is no more nor less realistic or verisimilitudinous for the PCs to arrive in the morning, at noon, or in the evening. Yet in much D&D play that is not treated just as a matter of framing. The travel is counted out on maps using miles-per-day charts and no one ever twists an ankle, or has a horse throw a shoe, or otherwise have their travel time be less than near-metrenomic. Why? What is this bringing to the table? Certainly (in my view, at least) not depth or verisimilitude!



When I read the word 'verisimilitude' I parse a combination of 'believability' and 'immersiveness'.

Is it neither realistic nor believable that the PCs be allowed to choose their time of arrival - particularly after the first time?  For example, once their intel puts the guildhouse somewhere in or near Cheapside Way they ought to be allowed to say "We'll check it out at mid-day when it'll most likely be busy" or "We'll check it out after dark so we can more easily tell suspicious activity from run-of-the-mill business" or "What's the weather forecast - if high winds or rain or fog are coming we might be able to use that to our advantage" or .....

Far more immersive that they get to plan their own actions than to just be plopped down at the top of the street and told "Here you are".

As for depth: describing a street with a number of diverse (and maybe interesting, who knows?) locations by default gives more depth to the setting than just describing the Curio Shop and bypassing everything else.

For long-range travel: while I do a quick calculation using distance and miles-per-day for how long a trip _should_ take (as in, in my current setting it's six days by foot from Torcha to Karnos; a trip that many a PC has made over the years) I'll always do a single quick roll to see if there's any variance this time - did the group make particularly good time, did they get delayed for some reason, etc. This is far more relevant when the journey is by water, as conditions can be so much more variable and (unless your ship is self-powered somehow) you're largely at their mercy.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm confused.  Genre appropriateness has been presented as an input into GM adjudication of action in the sense of if it's not present the GM can fail the declaration without engaging the action.  Like, not allowing someone to find a ray gun in the baron's closet, or asking a dragon to give away it's horde.  These are not genre appropriate to a 5e game and so the GM can use that heuristic to not consider them and fail them without consideration.  You say that genre appropriateness isn't a useful test of action declarations because there's no requirement for the player to adhere to genre in their declarations and beside, the GM can refuse those actions anyway.  That seems to miss the point because there wasn't a claim that the player was beholden to genre in action declarations, but that it was a consideration for how the GM would adjudicate that action declaration -- a claim you seem to agree with at least in outcome in that non-appropriate declarations should be made to fail.




I've made that same argument for 2-3 posts now.  I think one would be justified in thinking that because you hadn't rejected my argument on those grounds earlier that you implicitly agreed with those premises.  That's definitely how your posts read to me and how I took that.  I mean afterall, we could have saved countless back and forth posts if you had just led with this.

That said, it's been days and pages later.  I don't believe you are summarizing your point fairly or correctly.  But it's been days and pages later now and I don't think either of us want to go digging back through the thread to prove that one way or another.



> In game, as in with the mechanics, there's nothing about an inappropriate declaration that isn't easily handled by refusing to allow success of the action.  This holds across many game systems.  Genre appropriateness is a heuristic for the GM to use in adjudicating the action.  In a game like 5e, where the GM decides, it's an input to auto-success or failure (ie, if a check is even called for) or to how an ability check is resolved (what ability check, what DC, etc.).  Genre-appropriateness needs to guide the narration of the result as well.  It's a GM side heuristic for both determining if an action requires adjudication or refusal, and what possible narrations of the outcomes might be.




If all you have meant to say is that player actions will auto fail if not genre appropriate then I agree.  I agree with this part of what you said fully.  It's just I don't see how that actually ties back into a meaningful way into the discussion we were having about PC actions.



> For example, if a 1st level fighter without any assistance or magic, is declared to be jumping to the moon, the GM can choose to refuse this action declaration based on being genre inappropriate.




I don't believe he can - at least not by any rule other than fiat.  



> The GM might also use the same-heuristic to allow the action, but declare it automatic failure, and narrate a result, like, "you try as hard as you can, but just look silly jumping up and down but only getting a few feet off the ground.  In the meantime, you've made a lot of noise and, <clatter> it appears someone or something is coming to investigate.  What do you do?"




And that is what happens.



> If the GM has some established in the fiction reason to consider the action, then that might control.  If the fighter happens to be standing where the GM has revealed that there's an environmental effect that a jumping person will be teleported to the moon, then the adjudication of this action changes.  The established fiction has provided a way to avoid genre inappropriateness, and the action is consistent with that established fiction.  Viola!  The 1st level fighter now 'jumps' to the moon in a way that is both grounded in the fiction and is genre appropriate.




Yep and that's where following from established fiction comes in - which I think is a very good heuristic.  I don't believe you can shorten it to following from fiction though as pretty much everything is possible in fiction - as you just illustrated it's fictionally possible in genre appropriate terms for a fighter to jump and end up on the moon.  That's why established fiction is soo important there.


----------



## Campbell

I am not speaking for @pemerton here.

@Lanefan 

Generally in games with a GM where  scene framing is like a thing framing is primarily the responsibility of the GM. The GM/MC is the one that sets the stage for the scene and establishes the initial fictional details. So if the players have their characters travel from one village to another the time it took, what time of day it is when they arrive, who is there to meet them when they arrive is up for the GM to establish.

Players do not generally get to frame scenes.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> That said, it's been days and pages later. * I don't believe you are summarizing your point fairly or correctly.*  But it's been days and pages later now and I don't think either of us want to go digging back through the thread to prove that one way or another.



I'm having trouble reading this as anything other than an accusation of dishonesty.  Help me out, here.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> Is it neither realistic nor believable that the PCs be allowed to choose their time of arrival - particularly after the first time?



I wasn't contemplating "after the first time". But equally your description is not contemplating "after the first time", given that - after the first time - many things could have changed (burned or broken buildings; injured, departed or deceased people; etc - I mean, this whole thing started from a reference to burning down an orphanage).



Lanefan said:


> describing a street with a number of diverse (and maybe interesting, who knows?) locations by default gives more depth to the setting than just describing the Curio Shop and bypassing everything else.



That's like saying that a Lonely Planet guidebook, or a street directory, has more depth than JRRT's description of Minas Tirith. I simply don't accept the proposition.

A simple description of a forlorn face in the window of the curio shop might - depending on context, of course - provide more depth than any amount of description of building layouts and signage.



Lanefan said:


> For example, once their intel puts the guildhouse somewhere in or near Cheapside Way they ought to be allowed to say "We'll check it out at mid-day when it'll most likely be busy" or "We'll check it out after dark so we can more easily tell suspicious activity from run-of-the-mill business" or "What's the weather forecast - if high winds or rain or fog are coming we might be able to use that to our advantage" or .....
> 
> Far more immersive that they get to plan their own actions than to just be plopped down at the top of the street and told "Here you are".





Campbell said:


> Generally in games with a GM where  scene framing is like a thing framing is primarily the responsibility of the GM. The GM/MC is the one that sets the stage for the scene and establishes the initial fictional details. So if the players have their characters travel from one village to another the time it took, what time of day it is when they arrive, who is there to meet them when they arrive is up for the GM to establish.
> 
> Players do not generally get to frame scenes.



As it happens, this came up in our session yesterday. The PCs led their warband out on a night time raid against a group of Huns. They had their scout, Algol the bloodthirsty, leading the way. I had the player whose PC has Algol as part of his retinue make a Hunting + Presence check against an appropriate difficulty - the check failed.

So I narrated that the group spent most of the night wandering through the hills trying to find the Huns, which eventually they did as the red glow of dawn was just barely visible on the horizon. As a result of spending the night wandering, the PCs and their forces had a one-die penalty to their checks during the ensuing battle.

In system terms, what is happening here is that the players have asked for a scene: _We find the Huns during the night_. I have decided that there is a risk attached to this, of being tired from staying up all night. So I call for a check (in other systems this might be a check to establish an augment, or avoid a complication - eg in Burning Wheel it might be a linked test). The check fails, and so I frame the desired scene but with an attendant penalty applying to the PCs.

Deciding whether the players should just get the scene they want - _We're in Cheapside Way at midday _- or whether it should be complicated in some fashion or even outright denied - is an important aspect of GMing. These decisions involve questions of pacing, degree of challenge, what aspects of the fiction and the characters are to be foregrounded (eg in my example the fact that one of the PCs has a hunter and scout in his service becomes foregrounded), etc.

Handling this sort of thing badly - eg go back to @Doug McCrae's description of his game with Gordon - is in my view one major reason for poor RPG experiences.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm having trouble reading this as anything other than an accusation of dishonesty.  Help me out, here.




I post 3 full paragraphs in response to you.  You then ignore everything else and pick out one sentence.  So how about you help me out here, because I'm having trouble reading that as anything other than an accusation that i'm acting in bad faith.

And to answer your question.  Suggesting you are mistaken while leaving the door open to being mistaken myself is not the same as suggesting you are dishonest.  To me that should have been such an obvious possibility that the most likely cause for your misinterpretation IMO was that you were looking to take offense.  Though it's certainty not the only possible cause and so I'm curious what your explanation will be.

So I think we have 2 options.  You can take further offense and we can end the conversation.  Or we can both apologize for any unintended offense and move on.  In fact I'll even go first.  I intended no offense and apologize if any was taken.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> I post 3 full paragraphs in response to you.  You then ignore everything else and pick out one sentence.  So how about you help me out here, because I'm having trouble reading that as anything other than an accusation that i'm acting in bad faith.
> 
> And to answer your question.  Suggesting you are mistaken while leaving the door open to being mistaken myself is not the same as suggesting you are dishonest.  To me that should have been such an obvious possibility that the most likely cause for your misinterpretation IMO was that you were looking to take offense.  Though it's certainty not the only possible cause and so I'm curious what your explanation will be.



Sigh.  I _asked_.  I _asked _if you could explain that statement in a way that wasn't an accusation of dishonesty.  I tried to *NOT *take offense.

As for the rest of your post, I was not interested in the discussion if you were accusing me of dishonesty, so I tried to resolve that, in a polite way, by asking.


> So I think we have 2 options.  You can take further offense and we can end the conversation.  Or we can both apologize for any unintended offense and move on.  In fact I'll even go first.  I intended no offense and apologize if any was taken.




I accept your apology.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> I've made that same argument for 2-3 posts now.  I think one would be justified in thinking that because you hadn't rejected my argument on those grounds earlier that you implicitly agreed with those premises.  That's definitely how your posts read to me and how I took that.  I mean afterall, we could have saved countless back and forth posts if you had just led with this.



No, silence on message boards is not consent or agreement.  There's any number of reasons I may not have responded to you, and silent assent should not be your default assumption.  The first time I realized what had happens was the same post you made things personal by attacking me instead of discussing my argument.  I put you on 'scroll snooze' and didn't read your posts for a few days.  As I do, I will usually look against after a few days and see if I think it's worth re-engaging.  Here we are.

If you want to assume that lack of response is agreement with your arguments from other posters, go ahead.  You should never assume that about me.



> That said, it's been days and pages later.  I don't believe you are summarizing your point fairly or correctly.  But it's been days and pages later now and I don't think either of us want to go digging back through the thread to prove that one way or another.



I am summarizing my point fairly and correctly because my point hasn't changed.  It's the same point I've made in many other threads.  I have no reason to obfuscate it in any way.  I'd actually strongly recommend that you do go back and check before you suggest I'm mistaken or in error about my own arguments -- not a good look.




> If all you have meant to say is that player actions will auto fail if not genre appropriate then I agree.  I agree with this part of what you said fully.  It's just I don't see how that actually ties back into a meaningful way into the discussion we were having about PC actions.



No, I'm saying I, as GM, can refuse to adjudicate the action at all.  There are any number of action statements that are genre inappropriate that I wouldn't even countenance, much less adjudicate.  There are many that I would.  Without a specific statement and situation, I'm not going to say one way or the other and keep both options open.



> I don't believe he can - at least not by any rule other than fiat.



Would I similarly have to adjudicate a cheated roll?  Or a dishonest modifier added by a player?  A genre inappropriate action can rise to the level of bad play and shouldn't be treated as a valid input to the game as a whole.  I don't need a rule in the game to decide this or we need to talk about how GMs must honor cheating because there's no rule specifically to deal with that outside of fiat.  If an action rises to the level of being outside the game, I don't have to use game rules to deal with that -- I can just say, "no, do we need to discuss this or are you going to engage the game?"

If it's not at that level, then, sure, adjudicate it if you want.




> And that is what happens.



If the GM chooses so.



> Yep and that's where following from established fiction comes in - which I think is a very good heuristic.  I don't believe you can shorten it to following from fiction though as pretty much everything is possible in fiction - as you just illustrated it's fictionally possible in genre appropriate terms for a fighter to jump and end up on the moon.  That's why established fiction is soo important there.



I'm very confident that I've only ever said, "follow _*the*_ fiction."  Following fiction seems like nonsense to me, so I wouldn't have said that outside of an unfortunate typo.  Following _the _fiction, refers to a specific fiction.  My mistake in assuming it would be obvious that it was the fiction created in the game.  I didn't think that it would be taken as refering to any fiction, as that doesn't seem a logical argument at all (as you note).  Now that I do know that some will miss the definite article or not grasp it's intent, I'll make sure to sprinkle in 'follow _the established_ fiction.'  I am glad that this formulation let you understand my point.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> Sigh.  I _asked_.  I _asked _if you could explain that statement in a way that wasn't an accusation of dishonesty.  I tried to *NOT *take offense.
> 
> As for the rest of your post, I was not interested in the discussion if you were accusing me of dishonesty, so I tried to resolve that, in a polite way, by asking.
> 
> 
> I accept your apology.




Now time for yours.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> No, silence on message boards is not consent or agreement.  There's any number of reasons I may not have responded to you, and silent assent should not be your default assumption.  The first time I realized what had happens was the same post you made things personal by attacking me instead of discussing my argument.  I put you on 'scroll snooze' and didn't read your posts for a few days.  As I do, I will usually look against after a few days and see if I think it's worth re-engaging.  Here we are.
> 
> If you want to assume that lack of response is agreement with your arguments from other posters, go ahead.  You should never assume that about me.
> 
> 
> I am summarizing my point fairly and correctly because my point hasn't changed.  It's the same point I've made in many other threads.  I have no reason to obfuscate it in any way.  I'd actually strongly recommend that you do go back and check before you suggest I'm mistaken or in error about my own arguments -- not a good look.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying I, as GM, can refuse to adjudicate the action at all.  There are any number of action statements that are genre inappropriate that I wouldn't even countenance, much less adjudicate.  There are many that I would.  Without a specific statement and situation, I'm not going to say one way or the other and keep both options open.
> 
> 
> Would I similarly have to adjudicate a cheated roll?  Or a dishonest modifier added by a player?  A genre inappropriate action can rise to the level of bad play and shouldn't be treated as a valid input to the game as a whole.  I don't need a rule in the game to decide this or we need to talk about how GMs must honor cheating because there's no rule specifically to deal with that outside of fiat.  If an action rises to the level of being outside the game, I don't have to use game rules to deal with that -- I can just say, "no, do we need to discuss this or are you going to engage the game?"
> 
> If it's not at that level, then, sure, adjudicate it if you want.
> 
> 
> 
> If the GM chooses so.
> 
> 
> I'm very confident that I've only ever said, "follow _*the*_ fiction."  Following fiction seems like nonsense to me, so I wouldn't have said that outside of an unfortunate typo.  Following _the _fiction, refers to a specific fiction.  My mistake in assuming it would be obvious that it was the fiction created in the game.  I didn't think that it would be taken as refering to any fiction, as that doesn't seem a logical argument at all (as you note).  Now that I do know that some will miss the definite article or not grasp it's intent, I'll make sure to sprinkle in 'follow _the established_ fiction.'  I am glad that this formulation let you understand my point.




Discussion is over.  Seems you would rather be right than attempt to continue.


----------



## pemerton

On this issue of _genre as a constraint on valid action declarations_, here's a very clear statement of the idea from the HeroQuest Revised rulebook (p 74), under the heading "Credibility Tests::

As Narrator, you are never obligated to allow a contest just because two characters have abilities that can be brought into conflict. If the character's proposed result would seem abusrd, you disallow the contest, period. . . .

Players are typically as attuned to common-sense narrative reality as you are, and will not routinely propoose patently absurd actions. You'll find that they do almost all of your credibility testing for you. . . .

What constitutes a credible action may vary form one setting to the next. [The text goes on to give examples of varous genrses, like LeCarre spy thriller compared to James Bond-style spy thriller.]​
I already posted about a similar point being made in the Burning Wheel book: no roll to see if there is beam weaponry hidden in the Duke's toilet.

Dungeon World (p 58) also states a similar idea, though it links it less to genre and more to a robust sense of ficitonal positioning:

Note that an “attack” is some action that a player undertakes that has a chance of causing physical harm to someone else. Attacking a dragon with inch-thick metal scales full of magical energy using a typical sword is like swinging a meat cleaver at a tank: it just isn’t going to cause any harm, so hack and slash [ie the basic melee combat resolution framework] doesn’t apply.​
This is also crucial in GMing Marvel Heroic RP: if Bobby Drake's player proposes as an action to try and beat The Hulk in an arm wrestle, then (unless Bobby does something tricky, like making The Hulk slip on some ice) the outcome is a foregone conclusion, because Bobby simply isn't anywhere near as strong as The Hulk.

These examples are all talking about something very different from the GM deciding that an attempted action fails because - though it makes sense given the genre and the established fiction - there is some reason stated in his/her notes that means it cannot succeed.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> Now time for yours.






FrogReaver said:


> Discussion is over.  Seems you would rather be right than attempt to continue.




In the last three exchanges about my position, you've said that my positions sucked, that I was not fairly or correctly summarizing my position, and that I'm more interested in being right when I correct misstatements about my position.  That's making it personal, an accusation of dishonesty, and a claim that I'm being argumentative.  My position doesn't suck -- many seem to get it and have argued it on my behalf.  I'm not being dishonest -- my position has neither changed nor has it been inconsistent.  And, correcting misunderstanding of how I look at the game and my positions isn't "being right," especially since that implies there's a "right" position on these things.  I'm actually the ONLY person that can be right about what I think about the game.

And, after all of this, I am suppose to apologize to you because I asked you if you intended to accuse me of dishonesty?  No, I'm not going to apologize for asking, politely, for clarification of intent.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> In the last three exchanges about my position, you've said that my positions sucked, that I was not fairly or correctly summarizing my position, and that I'm more interested in being right when I correct misstatements about my position.  That's making it personal, an accusation of dishonesty, and a claim that I'm being argumentative.  My position doesn't suck -- many seem to get it and have argued it on my behalf.  I'm not being dishonest -- my position has neither changed nor has it been inconsistent.  And, correcting misunderstanding of how I look at the game and my positions isn't "being right," especially since that implies there's a "right" position on these things.  I'm actually the ONLY person that can be right about what I think about the game.
> 
> And, after all of this, I am suppose to apologize to you because I asked you if you intended to accuse me of dishonesty?  No, I'm not going to apologize for asking, politely, for clarification of intent.




And this is why so many of your discussions blow up.  You seem incapable of admitting when your actions cause offense even if unintentional.  I have done that and tried to move forward while you refused.  It's not that I believe I did anything wrong but rather that I understand sometimes things can be taken the wrong way.  Why are you incapable of that courtesy?


----------



## FrogReaver

pemerton said:


> On this issue of _genre as a constraint on valid action declarations_, here's a very clear statement of the idea from the HeroQuest Revised rulebook (p 74), under the heading "Credibility Tests::
> 
> As Narrator, you are never obligated to allow a contest just because two characters have abilities that can be brought into conflict. If the character's proposed result would seem abusrd, you disallow the contest, period. . . .​​Players are typically as attuned to common-sense narrative reality as you are, and will not routinely propoose patently absurd actions. You'll find that they do almost all of your credibility testing for you. . . .​​What constitutes a credible action may vary form one setting to the next. [The text goes on to give examples of varous genrses, like LeCarre spy thriller compared to James Bond-style spy thriller.]​
> I already posted about a similar point being made in the Burning Wheel book: no roll to see if there is beam weaponry hidden in the Duke's toilet.
> 
> Dungeon World (p 58) also states a similar idea, though it links it less to genre and more to a robust sense of ficitonal positioning:
> 
> Note that an “attack” is some action that a player undertakes that has a chance of causing physical harm to someone else. Attacking a dragon with inch-thick metal scales full of magical energy using a typical sword is like swinging a meat cleaver at a tank: it just isn’t going to cause any harm, so hack and slash [ie the basic melee combat resolution framework] doesn’t apply.​
> This is also crucial in GMing Marvel Heroic RP: if Bobby Drake's player proposes as an action to try and beat The Hulk in an arm wrestle, then (unless Bobby does something tricky, like making The Hulk slip on some ice) the outcome is a foregone conclusion, because Bobby simply isn't anywhere near as strong as The Hulk.




I'm not familiar with those games but every example you give to me sounds like auto-fail and auto-success mechanics being used to root out genre inappropriate fiction before it makes it in the game.

I think there is an important distinction between:
1.  genre inappropriate fiction - which is what all these rules attempt to avoid
2.  genre inappropriate action declarations - of which I believe there aren't any because at worst anything that might be classified as that makes you function as the rpg analog to the literary comic relief character - and that's not actually a bad thing IMO.



> These examples are all talking about something very different from the GM deciding that an attempted action fails because - though it makes sense given the genre and the established fiction - there is some reason stated in his/her notes that means it cannot succeed.




I've seen arguments that both the genre and the established fiction meant that insulting the burgomaster would necessitate a harsh reaction.  I don't necessarily agree with those arguments but it's worth noting that they were made.


----------



## chaochou

Proponents of ’GM decides’ as a method of policing bad faith play by negating player agency, can’t simultaneously claim that GM decides doesn’t negate player agency.


----------



## Lanefan

Campbell said:


> @Lanefan
> 
> Generally in games with a GM where  scene framing is like a thing framing is primarily the responsibility of the GM. The GM/MC is the one that sets the stage for the scene and establishes the initial fictional details. So if the players have their characters travel from one village to another the time it took, what time of day it is when they arrive, who is there to meet them when they arrive is up for the GM to establish.



True, in a set-the-scene sort of way; but to what level of detail is the question, and at what 'points'?

For example, let's say the PCs are heading to Bayport to find an Assassins guild known to be based there that had been hired to kill off an important person in their hometown, and had succeeded in said killing.  The PCs' overall goals are twofold: one, try and find anything that can help determine who hired the guild; and two, exact some revenge on the guild by making such mess of it as they can.

Let's for convenience's sake say it's a ten-day journey by foot to Bayport and that said journey turned out (via whatever mechanics) to be uninterrupted and safe.

Now, do you frame them as generically arriving outside the town:

DM: "At about two hours before sunset on Auril 12, after an uneventful trip, you're looking down a long shallow decline at the town of Bayport about half a mile away.  It's mostly cloudy, with a cool sea breeze blowing in off the busy harbour.  Even from here you can see the gates are open, with considerable traffic going both ways; and while guards are present they don't seem very concerned about who or what is passing through."

Or do you assume they get into town and find an inn, and just put them there an hour later?

Or do you jump a step further and assume they've learned the guild's in Cheapside Way, and put them there either later that night or sometime the following day?

Or do you jump straight to their arrival at the Curio Shop, whenever that may be?

In order, each of these options incrementally increases table efficiency while decreasing exploration opportunities and - IMO - setting depth. (and also incrementally decreased are opportunities for the PCs to screw up as they go along)



> Players do not generally get to frame scenes.



Not directly, but they do - or should - get some input into what scenes are framed, and how often, via their attention to detail and what they decide to do.

For example, if the players state they don't do any investigating after dark due to worries the Assassins might have an advantage at night then framing the PCs into a night scene should be off the table unless the scene comes to them e.g. their inn room gets invaded.

And during their daylight investigations, do you roleplay them out or sort it by dice rolls?  I'd expect to roleplay them out, and my notes would be based on that expectation - hence the short-form write-up of Cheapside Way and the longer-form write-ups (and maps) of the Wit and Wisdom and the Curio Shop (and its various hidden bits!).


----------



## pemerton

FrogReaver said:


> I'm not familiar with those games but every example you give to me sounds like auto-fail and auto-success mechanics being used to root out genre inappropriate fiction before it makes it in the game.
> 
> I think there is an important distinction between:
> 1.  genre inappropriate fiction - which is what all these rules attempt to avoid
> 2.  genre inappropriate action declarations - of which I believe there aren't any because at worst anything that might be classified as that makes you function as the rpg analog to the literary comic relief character - and that's not actually a bad thing IMO.



I don't really understand what you think is at stake here, or why you find this point is an important one to make.

The distinction that is important to me, which the rulesets I referred to bring out, is between the following two things:

(i) enforcing genre contraints and fictional positioning when a player is making a decision as to what it is that his/her PC tries to do;

(ii) invoking the action resolution mechanics, which may include elements of GM adjudication, in order to find out what happens in the fiction.

The first is mostly about negotiation and consensus among the participants. The GM has a special responsibiility, but isn't the sole arbiter of what can be done within the constraints of genre and fictional positioning. For instance, in my 4e game it was the player of the invoker/wizard who would often take the lead in deciding what was or wasn't possible as far as magical effects were concerned.

The second is not about negotiation at all: in all the games I mentioned it's the player's job to declare actions for his/her PC and its the GM's job to apply and adjudicate the action resolution mechanics, in order to find out what happens.

These quite different at-the-table processes make it important to me to draw the distinction.

Conversely, running them together to my mind confuses responsibilities at the table. And it confuses (i) the adjudication of established fictional positioning to decide whether or not a mooted action is feasible with (ii) resolving a declared action by reference to unilateral GM conceptions of the fiction (eg as found in the GM's notes or extrapolated therefrome).



chaochou said:


> Proponents of ’GM decides’ as a method of policing bad faith play by negating player agency, can’t simultaneously claim that GM decides doesn’t negate player agency.



I'm not 100% sure who the target of this is: but from my distinction between (i) and (ii) above I hope I've made it clear that I see genre constraints and managing fictional positioning as something where shared agency and negotiation/consensus are appropriate - though I do think that in a fairly trad game the GM has a distinctive leadership responsibility here - whereas (ii) is different: the player's agency consists in declaring an action for his/her PC, and the GM's job in adjudicating it in good faith.

I hope this also brings out why I don't like adjudication based on secret fiction (ie GM notes and the like) because this tries to straddle (i) and (ii) in an unhappy way: like (i) it is the imposition of fictional positioning considerations but without any opportunity for negotiation or consensus, and that is because it pretends to be or presents itself as a versio of (ii).

I should add my standard caveat: I'm not talking about OSR-ish/"skilled play" here, where secret information in the GM's notes is de rigeur, and players are expected to discover that through various processes including the trial-and-error of action declaration. The flip side is that in that sort of play the GM has a very onerous responsibility to be exceedingly fair in not changing or departing from the notes, because that risks making the game competely arbitrary and subject to the GM's whims. But no one in this thread seems to be playing that sort of game.



FrogReaver said:


> I've seen arguments that both the genre and the established fiction meant that insulting the burgomaster would necessitate a harsh reaction.  I don't necessarily agree with those arguments but it's worth noting that they were made.



I haven't seen those arguments from anyone, but maybe I haven't read closely enough.

The only poster I've seen link the Burgomaster's reacttion to genre is me - I said that Gothic Horrors + Renaissance doesn't seem to necessitate off-with-their-heads rulers and does seem to invite mad rulers having their mansions burn down with them inside it.

I've seen people say that the Burgomaster's reaction is established by the GM's notes (or, in this case, the module text) but I haven't seen anyone say that it followed from the established fiction - and that seems right, because only the OP could know that and the OP hasn't really chimed in on this particular issue.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> Now, do you frame them as generically arriving outside the town: <snip options>
> 
> <snip>
> 
> if the players state they don't do any investigating after dark due to worries the Assassins might have an advantage at night then framing the PCs into a night scene should be off the table unless the scene comes to them e.g. their inn room gets invaded.



The games that @Campbell is talking about actually have principles that answer these questions. (Not all games involve the same principles.)

And I posted an actual play example not far upthread.


----------



## Maxperson

chaochou said:


> Proponents of ’GM decides’ as a method of policing bad faith play by negating player agency, can’t simultaneously claim that GM decides doesn’t negate player agency.



Cool story.  Player agency isn't being negated, though.  I haven't seen anyone here suggest stopping the PCs from trying impossible things.  Impossible things are just failing due to the impossibility of the attempted action.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> Cool story.  Player agency isn't being negated, though.  I haven't seen anyone here suggest stopping the PCs from trying impossible things.  Impossible things are just failing due to the impossibility of the attempted action.



I don't think this addresses @chaochou's point.

(1) He is not talking about _what happens to the PCs in the fiction_. He is talking about what happens at the table.

(2) At the table, he is not talking about the agency of the players to speak words like _I try such-and-such_. He is talking about the agency of the players to _actually change the shared fiction by having their PCs do things_. If the GM decrees that a change can't take place because such-and-such is impossible, the player has not exercised any agency. Their attempt at the exercise of agency has been blocked/negated by the GM.

That may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it's a thing.

My own preference is not to block/negate players' agency in this way, which is why not far upthread I said that the issue of genre fidelity and consistency with ficitonal positioning is something that can be established by negotiation and consensus (ie players get to exercise agency here) and that action declarations that fit within genre and the established fiction are to be adjudicated via the appropriate procedures (which in the games I play allows plenty of room for player agency to change the fiction).

It's for the same reason that I have been critical of the use of secret/unilateral GM information to declare actions automatically unsuccessful: this does not allow the players the agency of negotiation/consensus nor the agency of action resolution mechanics.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I don't think this addresses @chaochou's point.
> 
> (1) He is not talking about _what happens to the PCs in the fiction_. He is talking about what happens at the table.
> 
> (2) At the table, he is not talking about the agency of the players to speak words like _I try such-and-such_. He is talking about the agency of the players to _actually change the shared fiction by having their PCs do things_. If the GM decrees that a change can't take place because such-and-such is impossible, the player has not exercised any agency. Their attempt at the exercise of agency has been blocked/negated by the GM.




Is there a game where the players have the ability to change everything and anything that they like, or are there rules and limitations on what and how they can change them?  Because I haven't seen a game you've mentioned where the players can do anything they like.  At the very least they aren't allowed to undo established things.

Agency is limited in pretty much all RPGs.  The DM saying causing an attempt at an impossible task to fail isn't removing agency.  The players still have the same agency that they had prior to saying not.  It was just appropriately limited by game rules, just like in any RPG.  The amount of leeway a particular game grants may vary, but the DM using the rules and limitations of the game being played to say yes, no or roll does not remove any agency since it was already absent due to the rules.



> My own preference is not to block/negate players' agency in this way, which is why not far upthread I said that the issue of genre fidelity and consistency with ficitonal positioning is something that can be established by negotiation and consensus (ie players get to exercise agency here) and that action declarations that fit within genre and the established fiction are to be adjudicated via the appropriate procedures (which in the games I play allows plenty of room for player agency to change the fiction).




Sure.  You prefer games that set the player agency at a higher amount than D&D does.  You can also House Rule/Home Brew D&D and grant more or less agency.  Going by the D&D rules, though, saying no to an impossible action doesn't remove/negate any player agency.  That agency was taken by RAW, not the DM.


----------



## chaochou

Player agency is always zero when GM decides.

Anyone bringing up ‘other rpgs’ should name them explicitly, so we can refer to the game texts.

Agency is the ability to change the fiction, usually through player-facing mechanics combined with established fiction which act as constraints.

Announcing an action isn’t agency - such a definition would be a nonsense. Of course, nonsense definitions suit the purposes of GMs wishing to conceal the lack of player agency in their games.


----------



## prabe

chaochou said:


> Player agency is always zero when GM decides.
> 
> Anyone bringing up ‘other rpgs’ should name them explicitly, so we can refer to the game texts.
> 
> Agency is the ability to change the fiction, usually through player-facing mechanics combined with established fiction which act as constraints.
> 
> Announcing an action isn’t agency - such a definition would be a nonsense. Of course, nonsense definitions suit the purposes of GMs wishing to conceal the lack of player agency in their games.




If players have zero agency when the GM decides, it seems to me as though they have no agency when the dice decide. In D&D 5E (which is the game currently at the top of my brain, so it's easiest for me to reference) the fact the DM decides if something is certain or in doubt, and the difficulty if it's in doubt, is called out in the Player's Handbook, so it seems to me like a player-facing thing. It is of course, possible that I'm misunderstanding you--or that I'm one of those GMs who doesn't allow player agency at all.


----------



## chaochou

prabe said:


> If players have zero agency when the GM decides, it seems to me as though they have no agency when the dice decide.




That would depend on the specific wording of the mechanic in question.

Here’s a simple mechanic:

Whenever a player proposes an action, roll 1d6. On a 1-3 the GM narrates the outcome. On a 4-6 the player narrates the outcome.

Such a mechanic offers clear and transparent player agency. The aesthetics may not be to everyones taste, but it proves that mechanical resolution can provide player agency.

PbtA games work on a much more sophisticated variation of this basic premise. Dust Devils works exactly like this, except the dice are replaced with a hand of poker. I could name others, but it doesn’t add anything.



prabe said:


> -or that I'm one of those GMs who doesn't allow player agency at all.




And if your game is fun and and everyone is having a good time, so what? It doesn’t matter to me, nor you if everything is working.

But such self-reflection will be valuable if you find yourself in the position of the OP.


----------



## prabe

chaochou said:


> That would depend on the specific wording of the mechanic in question.
> 
> Here’s a simple mechanic:
> 
> Whenever a player proposes an action, roll 1d6. On a 1-3 the GM narrates the outcome. On a 4-6 the player narrates the outcome.
> 
> Such a mechanic offers clear and transparent player agency. The aesthetics may not be to everyones taste, but it proves that mechanical resolution can provide player agency.




But in that instance, the dice aren't deciding success/failure, just narrative authority. My point is that if "The GM Decides" removes player agency--because player can't really control what the GM will decide--then "The Dice Decide" seems to also remove player agency, because the player can't control the dice, either. The player can (probably) manipulate the odds somewhat, but random is what random does.



chaochou said:


> And if your game is fun and and everyone is having a good time, so what? It doesn’t matter to me, nor you if everything is working.
> 
> But such self-reflection will be valuable if you find yourself in the position of the OP.




Agreed that understanding why one GMs the way one does is a good thing, and agreed that "people having a good time" is the most important metric for "a good game." I've enjoyed games with a variety of amounts of player narrative authority, and I find that what matter most to my enjoyment of the game is the group I'm playing with.


----------



## chaochou

prabe said:


> But in that instance, the dice aren't deciding success/failure, just narrative authority. My point is that if "The GM Decides" removes player agency--because player can't really control what the GM will decide--then "The Dice Decide" seems to also remove player agency, because the player can't control the dice, either. The player can (probably) manipulate the odds somewhat, but random is what random does.



Thats simply playing the same semantic game as the last poster who claimed dice have whims. Tedious.


----------



## prabe

chaochou said:


> Thats simply playing the same semantic game as the last poster who claimed dice have whims. Tedious.




No, it's not. The poster who described dice as having whims wasn't pretending to be describing a literal truth, but was using "whims of the dice" as a metaphor for "random chance"; that's not playing a semantics game at all. I'm asking how "The DM Decides" removes player agency but "The DIce Decide" doesn't; your example didn't touch on player agency, by my lights, and I'm trying to determine if you're maybe using it to mean something radically different from what I do.


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> No, it's not. The poster who described dice as having whims wasn't pretending to be describing a literal truth, but was using "whims of the dice" as a metaphor for "random chance"; that's not playing a semantics game at all. I'm asking how "The DM Decides" removes player agency but "The DIce Decide" doesn't; your example didn't touch on player agency, by my lights, and I'm trying to determine if you're maybe using it to mean something radically different from what I do.




I think the simple answer is that player agency to them means something different than it does to you and me.

For me and I presume you as well, player agency is about what actions the players can declare (and more but typing out the nuance on the phone is difficult). What they mean by player agency I would call total fictional control which isn’t really the same thing IMO.

In the real world I have agency (philosophical objections aside) and yet I’m there are few outcomes within my power to control.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> No, it's not. The poster who described dice as having whims wasn't pretending to be describing a literal truth, but was using "whims of the dice" as a metaphor for "random chance"; that's not playing a semantics game at all. I'm asking how "The DM Decides" removes player agency but "The Dice Decide" doesn't; your example didn't touch on player agency, by my lights, and I'm trying to determine if you're maybe using it to mean something radically different from what I do.




In the example given, 1-3 GM narrates and 4-6 player narrates, the dice may grant the player the ability to decide what happens as a result of the action. If they roll high enough, the player has the agency to narrate what happens. They most likely would narrate some form of success for the action in question. 

If the GM decides, he's likely going to narrate some form of failure or perhaps success with setback or similar. Whatever he decides, the GM is narrating the outcome, not the player, so on a 1-3, the player has no agency. 

Now imagine on a 1-6 the GM decides. If that's the case, where does the player agency come into it? 

If things are always up to the GM, then the players cannot know the chances of success for any action they take, not unless the GM decides to share his reasoning or his judgment with them in some manner (perhaps he says "this will be a DC 25 persuasion check" or even just "this is going to be very difficult to pull off" or something similar). And it's also possible to get very used to a specific GM and how they tend to handle such things to the point where players start to become comfortable about gauging their odds for in game actions. 

None of this changes the fundamental fact that if the GM can always trump the rules, then player agency can effectively become zero under this system.

There may be times where it is perfectly reasonable to restrict agency....several examples have been given, whether based on genre or the established fiction, and there are probably others we could come up with, as well. I don't think that anyone here would say that such GM judgment is always bad or anything like that.

I think it's just more that rules that so heavily rely on GM judgment in this manner typically will either not offer as much player agency, or can be more susceptible to an arbitrary reduction in such agency. They also tend to lend themselves to potentially unclear situations such as may have existed in the OP.


----------



## chaochou

prabe said:


> I'm asking how "The DM Decides" removes player agency but "The DIce Decide" doesn't




Explain how you think a dice generate propositions.


----------



## hawkeyefan

FrogReaver said:


> I think the simple answer is that player agency to them means something different than it does to you and me.
> 
> For me and I presume you as well, player agency is about what actions the players can declare (and more but typing out the nuance on the phone is difficult). What they mean by player agency I would call total fictional control which isn’t really the same thing IMO.
> 
> In the real world I have agency (philosophical objections aside) and yet I’m there are few outcomes within my power to control.




I think it's more about being able to achieve success at the stated actions rather than just declaring them. If the GM can simply decide "no, that's impossible" whenever he wants, then declaring actions is meaningless. 

Now, I don't think anyone would GM that way and expect to keep their players. But perhaps this helps to illustrate some of the concern about this system? Or why some might have some dissatisfaction with it? 

Looking at it solely in the context of D&D.....can a DM simply narrate that an attack is a miss, no matter what? I mean, if I roll a 26 on my attack, I should be able to hit the orc. If the DM says "oh, no, actually your sword is deflected by an arrow in flight, and your attack misses" then I'm likely gonna be a bit annoyed by that. This is far less likely to happen though, because D&D has a plethora of combat rules that make it pretty clear what types of actions can be taken (use a Standard Action to take the Attack Action), how their success is determined (roll d20 and add your total attack bonus and score equal to or higher than the target's AC), and their outcome (roll 1d10 and add your damage bonus, and reduce target HP by that amount). 

Combat is all very clear and understood. But the social aspect of the game is far less so......what am rolling, what's the target number, what happens on a success, do I need only one or will I need to roll again, and so on......these are all questions that rest entirely on the judgment of the GM. 

And that may not be bad. I run and play 5E all the time.....it can work great and be loads of fun. But these soft spots in the rules absolutely can result in poor play experiences from time to time, especially with a DM who isn't principled, or who is still learning.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> In the example given, 1-3 GM narrates and 4-6 player narrates, the dice may grant the player the ability to decide what If the GM decides, he's likely going to narrate some form of failure or perhaps success with setback or similar. Whatever he decides, the GM is narrating the outcome, not the player, so on a 1-3, the player has no agency.




So apparently "agency" and "narrative authority" are synonyms, and they only apply if the character succeeds at a thing. Wouldn't have been my guess. Does explain why there was so much pushback against the idea that characters could make mistakes, though.



hawkeyefan said:


> If things are always up to the GM, then the players cannot know the chances of success for any action they take, not unless the GM decides to share his reasoning or his judgment with them in some manner (perhaps he says "this will be a DC 25 persuasion check" or even just "this is going to be very difficult to pull off" or something similar). And it's also possible to get very used to a specific GM and how they tend to handle such things to the point where players start to become comfortable about gauging their odds for in game actions.
> 
> None of this changes the fundamental fact that if the GM can always trump the rules, then player agency can effectively become zero under this system.




It sounds as though you're saying that any game rule that requires GM judgment reduces player agency. That would explain why games that purport to be so fully about player agency seem to place such tight restrictions on the GM. Obviously, I'm not sure I agree with the premise, but the logic seems to follow.



hawkeyefan said:


> There may be times where it is perfectly reasonable to restrict agency....several examples have been given, whether based on genre or the established fiction, and there are probably others we could come up with, as well. I don't think that anyone here would say that such GM judgment is always bad or anything like that.
> 
> I think it's just more that rules that so heavily rely on GM judgment in this manner typically will either not offer as much player agency, or can be more susceptible to an arbitrary reduction in such agency. They also tend to lend themselves to potentially unclear situations such as may have existed in the OP.




I don't disagree that it's reasonable to disallow actions that don't fit the fiction--whether it's a matter of established facts in the fiction, or genre-fidelity, or whatever--but I'm not sure I agree that those are diminishing player agency. Of course, we may be looking at this from different angles and/or using words differently.


----------



## prabe

chaochou said:


> Explain how you think a dice generate propositions.




Where, when I was speaking literally, did I say a die could generate a proposition?


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> So apparently "agency" and "narrative authority" are synonyms, and they only apply if the character succeeds at a thing. Wouldn't have been my guess. Does explain why there was so much pushback against the idea that characters could make mistakes, though.




I don't think they are synonyms. But I think on is an example of the other. 

Characters making mistakes would likely be when they rolled a 1-3 in the example.



prabe said:


> It sounds as though you're saying that any game rule that requires GM judgment reduces player agency. That would explain why games that purport to be so fully about player agency seem to place such tight restrictions on the GM. Obviously, I'm not sure I agree with the premise, but the logic seems to follow.




No, that's not what I'm saying. Every game requires GM judgment in some way. There's a reason the role exists in most games.....it's kind of required. But how they exercise their judgment, and what limits are placed on them, and what the players can or can't do about it......those are all important to the big picture. 



prabe said:


> I don't disagree that it's reasonable to disallow actions that don't fit the fiction--whether it's a matter of established facts in the fiction, or genre-fidelity, or whatever--but I'm not sure I agree that those are diminishing player agency. Of course, we may be looking at this from different angles and/or using words differently.




Sure they are.....they're just reasonable ways of limiting the player agency. Saying "I pull out my ray gun" in a game of D&D is usually gonna get shot down, and rightfully so (except if you're playing some kind of Barrier Peaks flavored game). It is a limit on player agency to not allow that....but it's a limit that everyone is okay with. 

I think the issue is the rather large gray area when it comes to many other elements of D&D play that are left up to the DM. For example, taking one insult cast by one PC toward an NPC and deciding that the NPC must not only react negatively, but that any and all progress or good will established by other PCs prior to this point is null and void.


----------



## iserith

prabe said:


> So apparently "agency" and "narrative authority" are synonyms, and they only apply if the character succeeds at a thing. Wouldn't have been my guess. Does explain why there was so much pushback against the idea that characters could make mistakes, though.




Pretty sure "agency" is just another buzz word like "metagaming" or "railroading" that doesn't actually have a definition anymore and is used solely by internet posters to criticize other people and their games.


----------



## prabe

iserith said:


> Pretty sure "agency" is just another buzz word like "metagaming" or "railroading" that doesn't actually have a definition anymore and is used solely by internet posters to criticize other people and their games.




The meaning of "agency" in a TRPG context, as I've come to understand it, is the ability to act, to make a choice, to have a choice matter. It's at the heart of arguments over quantum ogres and "railroads." I don't see any resolution system I've experienced as inherently removing that (though some games have other elements that do).

It seems consistent with dictionary definitions I've found. We could get into whether lexicographers are (or should be) descriptive or prescriptive, but that's entirely another topic.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> I should add my standard caveat: I'm not talking about OSR-ish/"skilled play" here, where secret information in the GM's notes is de rigeur, and players are expected to discover that through various processes including the trial-and-error of action declaration. The flip side is that in that sort of play the GM has a very onerous responsibility to be exceedingly fair in not changing or departing from the notes, because that risks making the game competely arbitrary and subject to the GM's whims. But no one in this thread seems to be playing that sort of game.



Sez who?

I am, and I suspect a few others are also but I'll leave it to them to speak up if they like.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> In the example given, 1-3 GM narrates and 4-6 player narrates, the dice may grant the player the ability to decide what happens as a result of the action. If they roll high enough, the player has the agency to narrate what happens. They most likely would narrate some form of success for the action in question.
> 
> If the GM decides, he's likely going to narrate some form of failure or perhaps success with setback or similar. Whatever he decides, the GM is narrating the outcome, not the player, so on a 1-3, the player has no agency.
> 
> Now imagine on a 1-6 the GM decides. If that's the case, where does the player agency come into it?



A previous question from another poster remains unanswered as yet, and I too am curious, so I'll rephrase it here:

Is there a game or system out there where, in effect, on 1-6 the player decides?

And if yes, given that it's simple human nature to not willingly disadvantage oneself when other options exist, how on earth would it function?


----------



## Lanefan

chaochou said:


> Explain how you think a dice generate propositions.



It doesn't.  It generates outcomes.

After an action is declared (or equivalent), a die roll generates outcomes in a manner largely out of the player's control (assuming honest die-rolling).  A GM using full-on GM fiat also generates outcomes in a manner largely out of the player's control.

The question being asked is what's the root difference between these two methods of generating outcomes, other than semantics?  

(I have my own ideas as to an answer to this question but I'll wait a bit so as to leave it open-ended for now)


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> If players have zero agency when the GM decides, it seems to me as though they have no agency when the dice decide.





chaochou said:


> That would depend on the specific wording of the mechanic in question.
> 
> Here’s a simple mechanic:
> 
> Whenever a player proposes an action, roll 1d6. On a 1-3 the GM narrates the outcome. On a 4-6 the player narrates the outcome.
> 
> Such a mechanic offers clear and transparent player agency. The aesthetics may not be to everyones taste, but it proves that mechanical resolution can provide player agency.
> 
> PbtA games work on a much more sophisticated variation of this basic premise. Dust Devils works exactly like this, except the dice are replaced with a hand of poker. I could name others, but it doesn’t add anything.



Some of the systems I play work as you describe: Burning Wheel and Prince Valliant are both like this, though with more complicated ways of building the dice pools and more judgement involved in determining how many successes are needed.

Other systems I play use different approaches: eg in 4e D&D or Classic Traveller the action thta is declared affects the choice or resolution mechanic and the way it works ("subsystems"). But they still have the basic idea that if the player wins the roll then what s/he wanted to have happen, occurs.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> A previous question from another poster remains unanswered as yet, and I too am curious, so I'll rephrase it here:
> 
> Is there a game or system out there where, in effect, on 1-6 the player decides?
> 
> And if yes, given that it's simple human nature to not willingly disadvantage oneself when other options exist, how on earth would it function?




Well, “oneself” and “one’s character” are often blurred, but for many they are not, and some games thrive on complication.

That being said, the only games I can think of that may fit this description would be something like Microscope or Kingdom. Those are more storytelling games, though. But players absolutely can narrate awful things happening to their characters much as in the same way an author may have awful things happen to a character he loves. 

I mean, drama in any medium means some bad things will happen to characters.


----------



## prabe

Lanefan said:


> Sez who?
> 
> I am, and I suspect a few others are also but I'll leave it to them to speak up if they like.




I am simultaneously DMing two campaigns almost entirely unlike what @Lanefan runs (and I gather plays in), and deeply sympathetic to much of what he says about how he tries to run. I try to manage it so the setting has an objective existence outside the PCs; I let the PCs decide what goals they're going to pursue and in which order; I'm maybe more willing than many other GMs to let the PCs flail a little. (Whether it's the characters or the players in any part of that doesn't matter to me--how much the players are seeing things from the characters' POV is on them.) I don't do "gotcha" things, but I'm also willing to let the players (and/or the characters) make mistakes--sometimes the story goes interesting places, then.


----------



## Campbell

Lanefan said:


> Sez who?
> 
> I am, and I suspect a few others are also but I'll leave it to them to speak up if they like.




Moldvay for one. Kevin Crawford and many of his OSR contemporaries for another.

There is a pretty fundamental split in the OSR community based on if you prefer the Moldvay B/X approach to module design and running a game or are more Gygaxian in your leanings. I mean at least we all agree that Dragonlance ruined everything!

More seriously when running old school games and newer offshoots (Mothership, Nightmares Underneath, Stars Without Number) I view myself as a war gaming referee. I build these challenges because I want to see how players handle them. The fun for me is enabling their play. Disciplined GMing a big part of that.


----------



## Fenris-77

One of the ways to parse RPGs is to examine the way a given game apportions authority over the diegetic frame. This usually means unpacking how that authority is split between players, more specifically the GM role and the player role. The diegetic frame is the frame within which narrated events occur, so for ease, the narrative frame, although thats a less precise term. Player agency refers to the portion of authority given to the player role to establish fact or exert change on the frame state. This includes both declaring actions that will change the frame and narrative control over the outcome of those actions, among other things. Those aren't mutually exclusive or even particularly separate. A given game will use various rules and mechanics to describe and delineate this authority for all players. The phrase player agency covers a lot of ground, and looks different depending on the game in question, but always comes back to authority over the diegetic frame.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> The DM saying causing an attempt at an impossible task to fail isn't removing agency.  The players still have the same agency that they had prior to saying not.  It was just appropriately limited by game rules, just like in any RPG.
> 
> <snipP
> 
> Going by the D&D rules, though, saying no to an impossible action doesn't remove/negate any player agency.  That agency was taken by RAW, not the DM.





prabe said:


> In D&D 5E (which is the game currently at the top of my brain, so it's easiest for me to reference) the fact the DM decides if something is certain or in doubt, and the difficulty if it's in doubt, is called out in the Player's Handbook, so it seems to me like a player-facing thing. It is of course, possible that I'm misunderstanding you--or that I'm one of those GMs who doesn't allow player agency at all.



These posts seeem confused about @chaochou's point. He is not making an assertion about _what the rules of 5e D&D permit or require_. He is making an assertion about _whether a particular decision-making procedure permits players to exercise agency_.

It does not rebut his claim to show that one popular RPG endorses or promotes that decision-making procedure.



Maxperson said:


> Is there a game where the players have the ability to change everything and anything that they like, or are there rules and limitations on what and how they can change them?  Because I haven't seen a game you've mentioned where the players can do anything they like.  At the very least they aren't allowed to undo established things.



In the post of mine that you quotd, I distinguished two things:

(i) Establishing the costraints of genre and fictional positioning;

(ii) Applying the action resolution mechanics to find out what happens when an action is declared.

The first - which seems to be what you are referring to when you talk about "changing everything" and "established things" - _does _engage player agency. Because it is (or certainly can be) a matter of negotiation and table consensus.

The second does (or certainly _can_) engage player agency because the action resolution mechanics tell us whether the player's vision or the GM's vision of what comes next prevails.



Maxperson said:


> Agency is limited in pretty much all RPGs.



Which RPGs do you have in mind?

In a social activity - include collective generation of a fiction as takes place in RPGing - it will be rare for any one person to have everything play out as they envisage it. But that isn't what @chaochou is talking about. He referred to _GM decides_ - that is, to a situation in which one person routinely gets to have things play out as they envisage it. That clearly involves a burden on the agency of other participants.


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> Moldvay for one. Kevin Crawford and many of his OSR contemporaries for another.



But I don't think those people are participating in this thread. Which is what I had referred to.



Campbell said:


> when running old school games and newer offshoots (Mothership, Nightmares Underneath, Stars Without Number) I view myself as a war gaming referee. I build these challenges because I want to see how players handle them. The fun for me is enabling their play. Disciplined GMing a big part of that.



This I agree with 100% and have aready posted multiple time upthread. I can't actually do it, but I've got a fairly good grasp of what it is that has to be done.

But the OP does not read to me like a report from the play of a "skilled play"/OSR game. That's why I thik that discussions of how to GM such games - while interesting and important in themselves - don't shed much light on the OP's situation.


----------



## Campbell

Broadly there is no such thing as general agency. You have agency over something - the ability to exert control over something. To have agency over content of the fiction means that I *meaningfully have the ability to gain a measure of control*. It does not mean I presently have control, only that through play I have the ability to exert control. Agency is almost never complete, almost always shared and often has limitations. In roleplaying games fictional positioning, assumed play expectations, assumed GMing principles, the individual boundaries of group members, and the rules of the game are all common limiters.

One mistake we often make in discussions of all sorts is assuming that because something is good in small or moderate proportions that it is good in large or total proportions. There are very good reasons to place limits on the agency of all participants (including the GM). Those reasons and those limitations are going to be different from game to game. Some will come from the text and some will come from the social environment.

This is why I find some modern mainstream texts irksome. They focus only on rights and authority, but never on limitations and responsibilities. If you take a look at Moldvay or even the First Edition DMG the game will instruct the GM. With authority it imparts *responsibility*. It even has back end rules you are expected to follow. It places limits on your agency so that players may also have some agency over the fiction. These things do not necessarily have to come from action resolution rules that impart agency directly. It come from expectations placed on the participants.

In a situation where there is a lack of enumerated principles and the GM has extraordinary latitude player agency is limited to what that GM allows. That might be a great deal. It might be barely at all. A player has no meaningful way to expect their actions are making a meaningful impact.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> These posts seeem confused about @chaochou's point. He is not making an assertion about _what the rules of 5e D&D permit or require_. He is making an assertion about _whether a particular decision-making procedure permits players to exercise agency_.
> 
> It does not rebut his claim to show that one popular RPG endorses or promotes that decision-making procedure.




My point is that "DM Decides" allows for as much player agency as "The Dice Decide." I was using 5E as an example:



prabe said:


> If players have zero agency when the GM decides, it seems to me as though they have no agency when the dice decide. In D&D 5E (which is the game currently at the top of my brain, so it's easiest for me to reference) the fact the DM decides if something is certain or in doubt, and the difficulty if it's in doubt, is called out in the Player's Handbook, so it seems to me like a player-facing thing. It is of course, possible that I'm misunderstanding you--or that I'm one of those GMs who doesn't allow player agency at all.




Wherein I think it's clear that I'm using 5E because it's the system I'm most conversant in at the moment, not because I think 5E's existence negates his point. I feel that the mechanics in question are player-facing, which @chaochou seemed to feel important for player agency, and I said so; I was asking for clarification as to whether I understood what was meant.


----------



## Campbell

@prabe

So I do not see it as the dice deciding. I see it as the game deciding what happens.

I think the impact this can often have on player agency is foreknowledge of what success looks like, what failure looks like, and often a decent idea of the odds. This means you can make more meaningful decisions about what your character will do.

This can be achieved somewhat in a refereed environment by a referee being open on how they are going to rule. It also helps to treat action declaration as a negotiation rather than like  a chess piece you just let go of.

There are other reasons you might prefer to let game determine how things go. For me personally as a GM it is often more about having less agency so I can be more meaningfully surprised by how things go.


----------



## prabe

Campbell said:


> @prabe
> 
> So I do not see it as the dice deciding. I see it as the game deciding what happens.
> 
> I think the impact this can often have on player agency is foreknowledge of what success looks like, what failure looks like, and often a decent idea of the odds. This means you can make more meaningful decisions about what your character will do.
> 
> This can be achieved somewhat in a refereed environment by a referee being open on how they are going to rule. It also helps to treat action declaration as a negotiation rather than like  a chess piece you just let go of.
> 
> There are other reasons you might prefer to let game determine how things go. For me personally as a GM it is often more about having less agency so I can be more meaningfully surprised by how things go.




That is mostly how I endeavor to GM. There are moments when it's more appropriate in-fiction for the characters to act without really good knowledge, but I try to make those as rare as possible. If the GM is being clear about the chances (or at least the situation, or at least what's impossible) something being impossible doesn't remove player agency any more than failing a die-roll does, the way I see it. (And I don't think failure negates player agency.)


----------



## Manbearcat

chaochou said:


> Player agency is always zero when GM decides.
> 
> Anyone bringing up ‘other rpgs’ should name them explicitly, so we can refer to the game texts.
> 
> Agency is the ability to change the fiction, usually through player-facing mechanics combined with established fiction which act as constraints.
> 
> Announcing an action isn’t agency - such a definition would be a nonsense. Of course, nonsense definitions suit the purposes of GMs wishing to conceal the lack of player agency in their games.




Going to use this post as a jumping off point to talk about this and I'm going to go about this in a roundabout way.

Agency, in anything, means the ability to put into effect one's will upon a thing.

Basketball players have agency during play of a game.  Their opponent(s) also have agency.  The referees also have agency.

Any member of the group above can arrest the agency of another member of the group.  How does this happen?  The following example hopefully does some work here:

* A wing player possesses the ball on the right elbow.  He dribbles hard left to the middle, intent on (a) beating his man and either (b) scoring or (c) generating a scoring opportunity for a teammate.

All of (a - c) are component parts of that wing player's effort to effect his will upon that singular possession (and in-so-doing, effect the greater will of his team upon the game).

Now the defender manned up on that wing player opposes all of (a - c) above.  If their will is done, none of those things will be realized (and what will be realized is a stifled possession leading to a bad shot or a Turnover).

Now, in a perfect world with a perfect referee, the ref has no agency.  S/he is merely the rulebook given life.  But we all know this isn't true, so the referee will invariably put into effect their will upon the game, even if its merely the unconscious will of "trying to call a fair and correct game."  Unfortunately, they are human...and because they are human, something like "the Block vs Charge violation" paradigm (just to name one of many) is utterly beholden to their human inadequacies (cognitive biases, minor vision impairment, a flawed mental model of how two human bodies of differing velocities and angles of intercept interact).  Or you could have more or less sinister or benign agency by a referee (willfully calling a play one way because of a bad relationship with a player or a coach or wanting the game to speed up so they can go get a drink after the game quicker).

All of agency (when it comes to games) is about authorship on the emerging work.

In a basketball game its about _this _possession and then about the game in total.

In roleplaying games its also about authorship.  You can map the above exactly to TTRPG scenarios.

A player wants thing x to happen and works to cement its place in the unfolding situation before them.  They do this by orienting themselves to the game's parameters (the authority distribution, the resolution mechanics, their thematic/tactical/strategic interests, the GM's ethos, the present gamestate and the possible future gamestates, etc) and then declaring an action for their PC.

All other participants are similarly positioned except, like the referee in the above scenario, the GM has the unique ability to declare the game's default orientation toward authority distribution as null and void (even if in so doing they're hoisted with their own petard and lose their game).

This conversation MUST orbit around the expected authority distribution and attendant play procedures that put it into effect which are inherent to play (and distinct to a particular system).  That is how a TTRPG's gamestate is changed from gamestate 1 to gamestate 2 and that is how the shared fiction emerges.


----------



## Lanefan

Campbell said:


> I mean at least we all agree that Dragonlance ruined everything!



Hells yeah we do! 



> More seriously when running old school games and newer offshoots (Mothership, Nightmares Underneath, Stars Without Number) I view myself as a war gaming referee. I build these challenges because I want to see how players handle them. The fun for me is enabling their play. Disciplined GMing a big part of that.



I take a similar referee-like attitude most often when designing adventures - the challenges are what they are irrespective of which PCs are brought to bear by which players when (or if!) the adventure ever ends up getting run.


			
				Fenris77 said:
			
		

> One of the ways to parse RPGs is to examine the way a given game apportions authority over the diegetic frame. This usually means unpacking how that authority is split between players, more specifically the GM role and the player role. The diegetic frame is the frame within which narrated events occur, so for ease, the narrative frame, although thats a less precise term. Player agency refers to the portion of authority given to the player role to establish fact or exert change on the frame state. This includes both declaring actions that will change the frame and narrative control over the outcome of those actions, among other things. Those aren't mutually exclusive or even particularly separate. A given game will use various rules and mechanics to describe and delineate this authority for all players. The phrase player agency covers a lot of ground, and looks different depending on the game in question, but always comes back to authority over the diegetic frame.



Fine as far as it goes but there's a whole other factor involved IMO: player agency also involves, in normal situations, how much control one has over one's PC and its (attempted) actions both in the fiction and at the meta-level.

Banning me from playing an Evil character - or worse, taking a previously-Good PC away from me and calling it an NPC if it gets turned Evil - is a hit to my player agency at the meta-level; Evil people of my allowable PC's race exist in the setting and thus banning me from playing one hits my agency.  But - note how this is different than saying I can't play an Elf because there's no Elves in the setting to be played: I can't play what doesn't exist, and that's cool.

Ditto turning my retired PCs into NPCs in an ongoing campaign, as per a recent discussion I had in here with (I forget who).

Banning obviously impossible action declarations is a hit to my player agency in the fiction; I can't have my PC try impossible things just for kicks.  Note, however, that allowing the declaration and then resolving it by simply saying that such an action is impossible (and if necessary figuring out any ramifications of my attempt) is just fine.  

It's a small difference, but a _very_ significant one, between a) saying I'm not even allowed to declare the action of shooting an arrow at the moon and b) allowing the declaration and then no-roll resolving it by flat-out saying I miss the moon and now let's figure out if that arrow hit anyone when it landed. Option a) denies my player agency; option b) preserves it.


----------



## prabe

Lanefan said:


> Banning me from playing an Evil character - or worse, taking a previously-Good PC away from me and calling it an NPC if it gets turned Evil - is a hit to my player agency at the meta-level; Evil people of my allowable PC's race exist in the setting and thus banning me from playing one hits my agency.  But - note how this is different than saying I can't play an Elf because there's no Elves in the setting to be played: I can't play what doesn't exist, and that's cool.




I don't disagree with anything else in this post (or even really with this) but one of the differences between your campaigns and mine is that I have a "no evil" policy. (Actually, it's a "willing to be heroes" policy, which isn't exactly the same thing.) It's not to say there's anything wrong with people who don't have that policy; it's primarily about what the people at my tables are comfortable with (and that's reason enough, IMO). I don't feel that a limitation such as that, which the players know about ahead of time, is a horrible negation of player agency.


----------



## Campbell

prabe said:


> I don't disagree with anything else in this post (or even really with this) but one of the differences between your campaigns and mine is that I have a "no evil" policy. (Actually, it's a "willing to be heroes" policy, which isn't exactly the same thing.) It's not to say there's anything wrong with people who don't have that policy; it's primarily about what the people at my tables are comfortable with (and that's reason enough, IMO). I don't feel that a limitation such as that, which the players know about ahead of time, is a horrible negation of player agency.




More agency is not always better. The indie game club I am involved in just started play testing Power Beyond Doubt, a Powered By The Apocalypse game where we play adult super heroes dealing with adult problems (fighting the good fight even when you are dealing with personal doubts or are not seen as a hero). As part of the initial session we had a discussion about the things we wanted to see and agreed:


We want to strike a tone close to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (some humor but take serious stuff seriously)
Superheroes should be integrated into the larger world (political systems, economies)
Heroes should be flawed, but still heroic.
Villains should be relatable, but still like wrong.
On screen death should be rare.
On screen romance should be rare.
No on screen death of children.
No on screen mind control or similar behavior manipulation through powers.
Personal stories are great, but try to get other players involved as much as possible.
This is kind of like a charter for the game that impacts the kind of actions we can take, how things will be narrated, and what conflicts get framed. As an example the character I am playing, Bloodsworn, is a mercenary with a strong code of honor that normally works for the other side except now he is basically working for SHIELD (called Vanguard in our setting). He utilizes some very violent tools (sword, gun, shuriken, explosives). It would be out of bounds for me to have Bloodworn start wantonly slaughtering his enemies. If I think Bloodsworn might kill a particularly heinous villain that might be up for grabs.

Part of our agreement is that no one owns the fiction and that we need to share it well.


----------



## prabe

@Campbell 

I guess I don't see anything you mention as negating player agency. Y'all agreed to all that before you started playing. It's really no different to me from deciding that you're not allowed to bring a GURPS character (as-is) to a D&D game. Also, that sounds like a campaign with some thought in it, which is good.


----------



## FrogReaver

pemerton said:


> I don't really understand what you think is at stake here, or why you find this point is an important one to make.




Well I don't really think I should be left guessing about what you don't understand about it.  Maybe elaborate a bit on what doesn't make sense to you about the stance?



> The distinction that is important to me, which the rulesets I referred to bring out, is between the following two things:
> 
> (i) enforcing genre contraints and fictional positioning when a player is making a decision as to what it is that his/her PC tries to do;
> 
> (ii) invoking the action resolution mechanics, which may include elements of GM adjudication, in order to find out what happens in the fiction.




It's very possible I don't know enough about those other games, but I'm not seeing any such distinction from the examples of them you have given.  Every example I read sounded like it was saying "use auto failure to keep the game in genre, etc.



> The first is mostly about negotiation and consensus among the participants. The GM has a special responsibiility, but isn't the sole arbiter of what can be done within the constraints of genre and fictional positioning. For instance, in my 4e game it was the player of the invoker/wizard who would often take the lead in deciding what was or wasn't possible as far as magical effects were concerned.




That a GM may delegate authority doesn't negate the fact that it was his authority to delegate.  In fact our fiction gives us a great proxy example of this, when one goes about to do something on the kings authority.  



> The second is not about negotiation at all: in all the games I mentioned it's the player's job to declare actions for his/her PC and its the GM's job to apply and adjudicate the action resolution mechanics, in order to find out what happens.




Even when the mechanic (aka the process of determining success or failure) is "GM Decides" it's always the GM's job to apply and abjudicate the action resolution mechanics.



> The only poster I've seen link the Burgomaster's reacttion to genre is me - I said that Gothic Horrors + Renaissance doesn't seem to necessitate off-with-their-heads rulers and does seem to invite mad rulers having their mansions burn down with them inside it.




You may have been the first but it wasn't like you were the only one that commented on that idea, and if I recall it did face some minority opposition.



> I've seen people say that the Burgomaster's reaction is established by the GM's notes (or, in this case, the module text) but I haven't seen anyone say that it followed from the established fiction - and that seems right, because only the OP could know that and the OP hasn't really chimed in on this particular issue.




I know I have seen the argument that it followed from established fiction.  That's part of what the comments about foreshadowing to the players that he would treat any who insulted him harshly was meant to show that the outcome was proper due to established fiction.  It's not an argument I fully buy into - but it was an argument made nonetheless.


----------



## chaochou

prabe said:


> My point is that "DM Decides" allows for as much player agency as "The Dice Decide."




Except this is a false equivalence, and a rhetorical con.

The correct equivalence in the simple mechanic I described is “the DM decides” vs “either the DM decides or the Player decides”.


----------



## FrogReaver

pemerton said:


> I don't think this addresses @chaochou's point.
> 
> (1) He is not talking about _what happens to the PCs in the fiction_. He is talking about what happens at the table.




I don't believe a chess player's agency is taken away because he can't move his knight as a queen.  I believe the agency of a player is defined by the moves they can make inside the game and that those moves cause unique feedback inside the game.  Losing player agency occurs either when that feedback loop gets temporarily turned off or when a legal move is not permitted.  The first can happen in the "GM Decides" style but isn't required to.  I don't believe it can happen games where a mechanic other than "person Decides" is being used.  The second only happens when a referee makes an incorrect ruling and can occur in any game with a referee.



> (2) At the table, he is not talking about the agency of the players to speak words like _I try such-and-such_. He is talking about the agency of the players to _actually change the shared fiction by having their PCs do things_. If the GM decrees that a change can't take place because such-and-such is impossible, the player has not exercised any agency. Their attempt at the exercise of agency has been blocked/negated by the GM.




All styles allow players to change the shared fiction by having their PCs do things.  This even occurs in an instance of auto-failure.  Player had PC attempt to do something -> auto-failure -> shared fiction changes.  Thus, from the definition provided in this quote it doesn't follow that a GM ruling auto failure takes away player agency.  It's not that their attempt at agency has been blocked/negated - it's that they did have their character make a move and that move resulted in a change in the shared fiction.

The more I read of your position the more I think you aren't using a very good definition of player agency.


----------



## Maxperson

chaochou said:


> Player agency is always zero when GM decides.




So the DM should never say yes?  Everything must be rolled for?



> Agency is the ability to change the fiction, usually through player-facing mechanics combined with established fiction which act as constraints.




What if the established fictional constraint results in no chance of success?



> Announcing an action isn’t agency - such a definition would be a nonsense. Of course, nonsense definitions suit the purposes of GMs wishing to conceal the lack of player agency in their games.



So you're argument is that by RAW, D&D has no player agency?  RAW says that you only roll if the outcome is in doubt, and even if there's doubt, you don't call for a roll unless there is meaningful consequence.  The DM is just following the rules.

Oh, and nice Strawman.  The argument wasn't that action declaration is agency.  The argument is that the player has full control over what his character does.  That involves a lot more than declaring an action.


----------



## FrogReaver

chaochou said:


> Except this is a false equivalence, and a rhetorical con.
> 
> The correct equivalence in the simple mechanic I described is “the DM decides” vs “either the DM decides or the Player decides”.




IMO.  That sounds like it's a worse position to take as that's even easier to argue against.  Let A be a situation where the outcome using both options is "the DM decides".  How then can the DM deciding in one case yield player agency and in the other case not?


----------



## Campbell

Can we please stop playing definition games? If you know what a poster means when they use a particular word or phrase can you address the content of what they are saying rather than how they express it? This is not debate club.


----------



## FrogReaver

Campbell said:


> Broadly there is no such thing as general agency. You have agency over something - the ability to exert control over something. To have agency over content of the fiction means that I *meaningfully have the ability to gain a measure of control*. It does not mean I presently have control, only that through play I have the ability to exert control. Agency is almost never complete, almost always shared and often has limitations. In roleplaying games fictional positioning, assumed play expectations, assumed GMing principles, the individual boundaries of group members, and the rules of the game are all common limiters.
> 
> One mistake we often make in discussions of all sorts is assuming that because something is good in small or moderate proportions that it is good in large or total proportions. There are very good reasons to place limits on the agency of all participants (including the GM). Those reasons and those limitations are going to be different from game to game. Some will come from the text and some will come from the social environment.
> 
> This is why I find some modern mainstream texts irksome. They focus only on rights and authority, but never on limitations and responsibilities. If you take a look at Moldvay or even the First Edition DMG the game will instruct the GM. With authority it imparts *responsibility*. It even has back end rules you are expected to follow. It places limits on your agency so that players may also have some agency over the fiction. These things do not necessarily have to come from action resolution rules that impart agency directly. It come from expectations placed on the participants.
> 
> In a situation where there is a lack of enumerated principles and the GM has extraordinary latitude player agency is limited to what that GM allows. That might be a great deal. It might be barely at all. A player has no meaningful way to expect their actions are making a meaningful impact.




I overall agree but this last part..

"In a situation where there is a lack of enumerated principles and the GM has extraordinary latitude player agency is limited to what that GM allows. That might be a great deal. It might be barely at all. A player has no meaningful way to expect their actions are making a meaningful impact."

IMO
1.  The character is a fictional construct.
2.  In such styles the player exerts full control over his characters actions.
3.  Thus, because players have full agency over the actions their characters take they have full agency over that part of the fiction.

It confounds me that someone would only consider it to be player agency over the fiction when a player can exert control over the outcome of a fictional action.  That's definitiely one kind of player agency over the fiction but it isn't the only one.


----------



## FrogReaver

Campbell said:


> Can we please stop playing definition games? If you know what a poster means when they use a particular word or phrase can you address the content of what they are saying rather than how they express it? This is not debate club.




Absolutely not.  Terms are important.  Especially ones with rather negative connotations.  And more importantly, the confusion these terms are causing is apparent in this thread.  Half the thread has been posters taking a term at literal face value because they don't get what is meant because either incomplete or incorrect words are being used to convey the concept.  I mean what does it hurt anyone to try to be more precise in their words?

And by the way - it's quite offensive to take something I find serious and call it "playing definition games".


----------



## FrogReaver

Campbell said:


> @prabe
> 
> So I do not see it as the dice deciding. I see it as the game deciding what happens.




If the game says the "GM decides" then can't that also legitimately be viewed as the game deciding what happens?


----------



## chaochou

FrogReaver said:


> IMO.  That sounds like it's a worse position to take as that's even easier to argue against.  Let A be a situation where the outcome using both options is "the DM decides".  How then can the DM deciding in one case yield player agency and in the other case not?




Im amused that your RPGs consist of a single dice roll.

Anyway, I created a mechanic which clearly provided player agency but also a constraint on that agency in the form of a dice roll.

But since people seem incapable of not misrepresentating even the most basic concepts such as that, try this mechanic.

Roll 1d6. On a 1-6 the player decides.

By changing the mechanic I’ve change the amount of player agency. Therefore the mechanics are determining the amount of player agency.

Contrast with D&D. Roll 1d20. On a 1-20 the GM decides. Thats a zero agency game.


----------



## FrogReaver

chaochou said:


> Im amused that your RPGs consist of a single dice roll.
> 
> Anyway, I created a mechanic which clearly provided player agency but also a constraint on that agency in the form of a dice roll.
> 
> But since people seem incapable of not misrepresentating even the most basic concepts such as that, try this mechanic.




You start out by misrepresenting me.  Then end up accusing me of misrepresenting you.  (That's kind of amusing IMO.)  Taking what you say to it's logical conclusion is not misrepresenting you.  I get that the first off the cuff example meant to illuminate usually falls short.  Happens to me all the time.  But that doesn't give you the right to be rude to me.  Now on to your updated example.



> Roll 1d6. On a 1-6 the player decides.
> 
> By changing the mechanic I’ve change the amount of player agency. Therefore the mechanics are determining the amount of player agency.
> 
> Contrast with D&D. Roll 1d20. On a 1-20 the GM decides. Thats a zero agency game.




I think @Campbell mentioned that agency is always in relation to something.  I agree there. In this case it's apparent you are talking player agency in relation to fictional outcomes.  I think that your point about that is so self-evident that no one disagree with it.  The problem arises when you shorten that to player agency as if there's no other kind.

Let me illustrate the other kind by introducing another mechanic in addition to yours above.  On a 1-3 the player decides the PC action.  On a 4-6 the DM decides the PC action.  This example also illustrates an additional loss of player agency.  The kind that is in relation to declaring PC actions.

And that's why I think proper and precise definitions matter.  We are talking past each other because we are talking about 2 different things but using the same shorthand term to designate it.  The ambiguity and disagreement goes away as soon as we add the additional precision needed.


----------



## FrogReaver

So now that the primary issue around player agency is resolved by observing there are 2 types:

Player Agency in relation to fictional outcomes.
Player Agency in relation to PC Action (attempts).
Perhaps it would be beneficial to talk about how these types of agency relate and interact and how different focuses on them can yield vastly different games.  I think it's important to note that typically games have a strong focus on only 1 of these types of agency (though this may not be universal).  For example:

Games with very limited/no player agency in relation to fictional outcomes but strong player agency in relation to PC Action (attempts) will strongly reward play centered around exploration, puzzle solving and general challenge based play.
Games with strong player agency in relation to fictional outcomes but more limited player agency in relation to PC Action (attempts) will strongly reward creative play, narrative play, etc.  (no experience here so harder for me to elaborate on).
I'm also sure there are various mixtures that form some very interesting "hybrid" games.  One outstanding question that I want to explore: can a game feature Strong player agency in relation to fictional outcomes while also having strong player agency in relation to PC Action (attempts)?


----------



## chaochou

FrogReaver said:


> I agree there. In this case it's apparent you are talking player agency in relation to fictional outcomes.  I think that your point about that is so self-evident that no one disagree with it.  The problem arises when you shorten that to player agency as if there's no other kind.
> 
> The kind that is in relation to declaring PC actions.




I started by stating that player agency is the ability to generate fictional outcomes. If you had an alternate view you could just have said so, instead of trying, and failing, to play semantics around dice, mechanics and probabilities.

You now agree with me that “GM decides” offers no player agency with regards to fictional outcomes. In fact, it’s now ‘self-evident’.

I reject the idea that play of a game can be done without the ability to change the game state. And the game state in an rpg is changed by making new propositions about what is true in the game world. Asking questions and proposing actions are simply a participant (in your case a player) making a request for the person with agency (in your case the GM) to change the game state.

Redefining agency to mean asking someone to do something that you’re not allowed to is, I’m afraid, not a viable position for someone claiming so adamantly that meanings matter.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> My point is that "DM Decides" allows for as much player agency as "The Dice Decide."



I don't know what you mean by _the dice decide_.

The main role of dice that I know of in a RPG is similar to what @chaochou has pointed to: if a player declares an action for his/her PC - ie puts forward a candidate narration of what happens - the roll of the dice determines whether or not that action succeeds, which is to say whether or not that narration comes true.

The GM deciding what happens is the GM making all the choices about narration, perhaps taking suggestions along the way.

I don't see how those two things are comparable in the degree of agency they give to the player. To me, the first looks like the playing of a game, where dice are rolled to work out who gets to decide what happens next. The second one looks to me like a person telling a story.



prabe said:


> something being impossible doesn't remove player agency any more than failing a die-roll does, the way I see it. (And I don't think failure negates player agency.)



It's the difference between (i) staking things on a coin toss, and losing and (ii) having no chance of getting what you want.

I think those are quite different things.



prabe said:


> I try to manage it so the setting has an objective existence outside the PCs



I'm not sure what this means. The setting is a work of fiction. It is authored. So are you saying that you author bits independent of what the players have their PCs do? That's not uncommon in RPGing, though not essential - a few weeks ago when I ran a session of Wuthering Heights the setting was independent of the PCs only in the sense that it was mid-to-late-19th century London and so at one point we looked at a map to see how long it would take to get from Soho to the Thames.

But all the details that mattered - the bookshop, the socialist reading group, the prison, the prisoners, the salient NPCs - were established by us as needed to make play happen.

But anyway, if what you mean by _the setting has an objective existence outside the PCs_ is that _you author bits of it independent of what the players have their PCs do_, how does that relate to players' action declarations for their PCs? @chaochou is asserting the following: if you use that GM-authored fiction as a basis for deciding that player action declarations that are unobjectionable from the point of view of genre and established shared fiction, then that is a burden on players' agency. Because there are effects tbat they _can't haveon the fiction_ not for reasons to do with genre, nor to do with what has already happened in play, but because the GM's unilateral conception of the fiction is given priority.



prabe said:


> I'm maybe more willing than many other GMs to let the PCs flail a little. (Whether it's the characters or the players in any part of that doesn't matter to me--how much the players are seeing things from the characters' POV is on them.) I don't do "gotcha" things, but I'm also willing to let the players (and/or the characters) make mistakes--sometimes the story goes interesting places, then.



I'm not sure what you mean by "let[ting[ the PCs flail a little" and also by "mak[ing] mistakes".

This seems to imply that there's something the players _ought to _be having their PCs do, but they don't know what it is ("flail around") and do something they oughtn't ("make mistakes").

When I RPG the story goes interesting places - see eg this actual play report from Sunday's session - but that doesn't involve the PCs or the players making mistakes and flailing arouind. Sometimes they succeed. Sometimes they fail. That's what action resolution mechanics are for.


----------



## prabe

chaochou said:


> Except this is a false equivalence, and a rhetorical con.
> 
> The correct equivalence in the simple mechanic I described is “the DM decides” vs “either the DM decides or the Player decides”.




The mechanic you described is "The dice determine who has narrative authority." There's nothing in the mechanic you described that determines success or failure (except for tendencies in human nature)--the player could, for whatever reason narrate failure; the GM could narrate success. None of that touches player agency--the ability to decide what the character does, which includes but is not limited to declaring actions as handled in the game.


----------



## Fenris-77

The idea of player agency is far more nuanced than simply indexing the presence of mechanics and detailing how they may or may not, or to what extent they constrain agency at the table for any given player or GM. Even if we restrict ourselves to the example of 5E D&D, which is designed to devolve authority pretty heavily on the GM, there is a pretty broad range of player agency available to players at different tables. The discussion over the last couple of pages has been very focused on the mechanical side of things, which is fine, as the mechanics do constrain agency in various ways, but those mechanics, even used straight out of the box, don't tell anything like the whole story.

One example that should be added to the discussion is that of questions and answers. It's pretty common in some games for players to ask the GM _is there X.. _with the unstated premise that should there be X it will feature in a declared action of some kind. For example, a character is escaping a tryst and needs to leave via the window, and she asks the DM _is there a balcony on the other side of the alley?_  The unstated premise being that if there is a balcony the character is going to jump across the alley onto it to escape. The answer to that question isn't a function of the rules at all, it's a function of play style and genre expectations, table contract, and some other stuff, but it still a key part of the player agency equation. In some games, the DM has detailed maps and the contents of those maps constrain the details of the physical space, and a DM in that game will only say there is a balcony if he has already established that is indeed a balcony there (because the map says so). That indexes rather low player agency as the map detail prevents the players from authoring details of fictional frame. Barring the map example, player agency in the matter of questions and answers is directly indexed by the chances of the DM answering in the affirmative, and the possibilities there are pretty broad.

Some DMs, myself as an example, will usually answer yes, of course there's a balcony, because the existence of a balcony is a wonderful addition to the fiction (IMO/ITO). Even if a map suggests there isn't, a balcony can be added, or a similar detail proffered in it's place. That game has higher player agency. Some DMs will let the dice decide this sort of thing. They make a roll with some quickly determined outcomes attached to probabilities, say roll a d6 and on  4+ there's a balcony. That is a mid-range level of player agency, there is still some authorial potential over the frame state, but not as much as in the first example. Finally, on the other end of the spectrum, we have out example from above, where there is no balcony unless that had already been decided. Keep in mind that this is indeed a spectrum, not a three state thing, and the manifold nuances of each table and DM change the equation slightly, but these examples do serve to roughly describe the extent of the spectrum.

This is only a single example of how player agency is established beyond the rules and mechanics, and in some games the above is actually part of the rules and mechanics, but not in D&D. Any example of the players having any control over the diegetic frame is an example of available player agency. I only point that out so that the discussion doesn't get blinkered into only examining the mechanics of a given game.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I don't know what you mean by _the dice decide_.




In context with "The GM Decides"--and (I thought) specifically talking about action resolution--I thought it was clear, but I'll try to be clearer.

Talking specifically about action resolution:

"The GM Decides" is the GM deciding that there is no doubt about the outcome of an action; either it cannot succeed or it cannot fail.

"The Dice Decide" is the outcome is in doubt and the dice determine the outcome.

I do not believe there has to be any difference in player agency between the two systems. I'll admit the GM has more authority in the first, and more room for asshattery, but I at least am not talking about good GMing/bad GMing.



pemerton said:


> It's the difference between (i) staking things on a coin toss, and losing and (ii) having no chance of getting what you want.
> 
> I think those are quite different things.




It's the difference between trying to do something you cannot do, and trying to do something you can.



pemerton said:


> I'm not sure what this means. The setting is a work of fiction. It is authored. So are you saying that you author bits independent of what the players have their PCs do? That's not uncommon in RPGing, though not essential - a few weeks ago when I ran a session of Wuthering Heights the setting was independent of the PCs only in the sense that it was mid-to-late-19th century London and so at one point we looked at a map to see how long it would take to get from Soho to the Thames.
> 
> But all the details that mattered - the bookshop, the socialist reading group, the prison, the prisoners, the salient NPCs - were established by us as needed to make play happen.




The PCs are in a world. They are not the first characters in that world, nor will they be the last. I try to keep the world consistent and occasionally have things happen that are unrelated to the PCs. I don't go to the lengths that say @Lanefan does, but I try to make the world feel at least a little lived-in.



pemerton said:


> But anyway, if what you mean by _the setting has an objective existence outside the PCs_ is that _you author bits of it independent of what the players have their PCs do_, how does that relate to players' action declarations for their PCs? @chaochou is asserting the following: if you use that GM-authored fiction as a basis for deciding that player action declarations that are unobjectionable from the point of view of genre and established shared fiction, then that is a burden on players' agency. Because there are effects tbat they _can't haveon the fiction_ not for reasons to do with genre, nor to do with what has already happened in play, but because the GM's unilateral conception of the fiction is given priority.




The setting is a place for the PC's stories to happen in. I don't see how using an established fictional world impinges on player agency any more than using the real world does. If a game is set in the real world, there are going to be things the PCs won't be able to do, and some of those things will be impossible because of the GM's understanding of the real world, which might be different from how the real world objectively works. I put real effort into not wrong-footing the players by having the world be different from their expectations, both in considering how I write up the world and in how (and when) I present that information to the players. I answer questions about the world whenever asked. What you're describing sounds like at least a mild-ish case of bad-faith GMing--not telling the players about world facts until they interfere with what they want their characters to do; that's very different, I think, from establishing before character creation that the world has no gods (while making it clear that the mechanics for clerics are otherwise unchanged).



pemerton said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "let[ting[ the PCs flail a little" and also by "mak[ing] mistakes".
> 
> This seems to imply that there's something the players _ought to _be having their PCs do, but they don't know what it is ("flail around") and do something they oughtn't ("make mistakes").




They're two different things. "Flailing" references uncertainty about the next step. "Making mistakes" means exactly that, though more often on a level closer to tactical than strategic. If the PCs don't know what to do next, I give them space to decide--almost always without further consequence; if the PCs make poor choice in spite of having adequate information, I let that play out--if I think the mistake is going to kill them, I'll probably try to find a way to get them more information to justify reconsidering the decision, but choices have consequences (or they don't really matter).



pemerton said:


> When I RPG the story goes interesting places - see eg this actual play report from Sunday's session - but that doesn't involve the PCs or the players making mistakes and flailing arouind. Sometimes they succeed. Sometimes they fail. That's what action resolution mechanics are for.




And when I DM, the story goes interesting places. I have nearly 800 pages of game notes from two campaigns I can pull from, if you want. Sometimes what looks like a mistake leads to an interesting story-thread; I'd miss that if they never made mistakes, wouldn't I?


----------



## Maxperson

chaochou said:


> Contrast with D&D. Roll 1d20. On a 1-20 the GM decides. Thats a zero agency game.



That's not how D&D works, though.  This is how D&D works.

1. Player decides to do something with 100% chance of success.  DM narrates what player decided.  Player agency.
2. Player decides to do something with 0%.  DM narrates what DM decided.  No player agency.
3. Player decides to do something with a variable success rate.  DM narrates what player decides upon a successful roll.  Player agency.
4. Player decides to do something with a variable success rate.  DM narrates what DM decides upon an unsuccessful roll. No player agency.

In my experience with 5e, players generally have better than a 50% success rate on the majority of their rolls, so the players' decisions will be what the DM narrates most of the time there.  My experience is also that there are more auto yeses than nos, so players' decisions will also be what the DM narrates most of the time there as well. 

Narration =/= decision. If the player decides to have his PC swim across a raging river and makes a successful roll, I don't get to decide to narrate something other than his successful swim across the river. If he fails the roll, I do get to decide how to narrate that failure.  It could be that he weakens and sinks below the water.  It could be that something like a creature or a current pulls him under.


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> In context with "The GM Decides"--and (I thought) specifically talking about action resolution--I thought it was clear, but I'll try to be clearer.
> 
> Talking specifically about action resolution:
> 
> "The GM Decides" is the GM deciding that there is no doubt about the outcome of an action; either it cannot succeed or it cannot fail.
> 
> "The Dice Decide" is the outcome is in doubt and the dice determine the outcome.
> 
> I do not believe there has to be any difference in player agency between the two systems. I'll admit the GM has more authority in the first, and more room for asshattery, but I at least am not talking about good GMing/bad GMing.



The difference in agency would be how much control the player has on the result.  In some games, the player narrates the result of the players decision, so he could make the successful swim check with help from his God, by pure strength, by pulling out a can of spinach and eating it halfway across as he gets into trouble, or whatever is within the bounds set up by the game.  In D&D the DM narrates the successful player decision, so while the player still has the agency to change the fiction through his declarations and the results of the successful die roll, he doesn't have as much agency due to the DM narration.


----------



## prabe

Maxperson said:


> The difference in agency would be how much control the player has on the result.  In some games, the player narrates the result of the players decision, so he could make the successful swim check with help from his God, by pure strength, by pulling out a can of spinach and eating it halfway across as he gets into trouble, or whatever is within the bounds set up by the game.  In D&D the DM narrates the successful player decision, so while the player still has the agency to change the fiction through his declarations and the results of the successful die roll, he doesn't have as much agency due to the DM narration.




It's possible that I'm the only one still in this conversation who separates _player agency_ (the ability to choose what a character does) from _narrative authority_ (the ability to tell the story). The ability to choose--whether to try to swim across the river--is player agency; the ability to describe the result--a current or a monster or angels or a canned leafy green vegetable--is narrative authority. I have played at least one game where narrative authority was not dependent on success in task resolution--so you might fail at a task and have authority to narrate that failure.


----------



## Fenris-77

Narrative authority and player agency aren't the same thing, but those ideas are pretty inextricably entwined in most games. Also, the amount of narrative authority does generally index the level of player agency, although it not the only thing that does so. Both the ability to declare actions and the ability to narrate the conditions of those actions are constrained in various ways and to different extents buy the specific mechanics, rules, and table contract of a specific game.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> Narrative authority and player agency aren't the same thing, but those ideas are pretty inextricably entwined in most games. Also, the amount of narrative authority does generally index the level of player agency, although it not the only thing that does so. Both the ability to declare actions and the ability to narrate the conditions of those actions are constrained in various ways and to different extents buy the specific mechanics, rules, and table contract of a specific game.




Yup, and there are games where it seems to me as though the players are trading some amount of agency and authority over their characters in exchange for some amount of at least narrative authority over the world. As in, the player gets some limited direct say in the world; in exchange, the GM gets some limited direct control over the PC. I've been told that's not correct, but that's the way the rules read to me (which is why I'm being clear this is my subjective reaction to/analysis of those rules).


----------



## Myth Master

chaochou said:


> This advice Is beyond bad. Its like anti-roleplaying.
> 
> It’s what to do if you aspire to be the worst GM ever.




Said NONE of the players I ever gamed with in 40 years. EVER.
And the point of it is ACTUAL role-play, unlike whatever it is you happen to be doing, apparently.


----------



## Fenris-77

prabe said:


> Yup, and there are games where it seems to me as though the players are trading some amount of agency and authority over their characters in exchange for some amount of at least narrative authority over the world. As in, the player gets some limited direct say in the world; in exchange, the GM gets some limited direct control over the PC. I've been told that's not correct, but that's the way the rules read to me (which is why I'm being clear this is my subjective reaction to/analysis of those rules).



It's not really an exchange, but if you're talking about games like FATE then both those features often tend to occur in the same games, sure. There's a pretty wide range of what player-facing narrative control actually looks like from game to game, and the presence of 'compels', to use the FATE term, isn't always a core mechanic of those games. People get really hung up on the difference between narrative authority generally and narrative authority over mechanical outcomes, but I'd submit that both index player agency to one degree or another (again, depending on the game). Some games also divorce the mechanical result more or less from the narration of the result, often based on the level of abstraction in the mechanic itself (by design).

GM control over the character is kind of a separate issue, and the phrase 'control over' has some implications that aren't really warranted in most cases, especially in how people who aren't used to those mechanics react to their presence (generally with great wailing and gnashing of teeth). The presence of that idea in a rules set usually means the game has a particular design space in mind to represent the idea that player character decision making can be swayed or influenced by other player characters or NPCs. Even in cases where a PC can be swayed via mechanics, the player is usually at least partially in control the narrative effects. It's a mechanical choice used to provide some separation between character and player when it comes to following the fiction. It's also usually a feature of rules sets that put a greater emphasis on social interaction and decision making. From a control standpoint its really more like the improv _yes and_ than it is anything else, you just have a mechanic to enforce certain instances of what a successful roll means.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> there's a whole other factor involved IMO: player agency also involves, in normal situations, how much control one has over one's PC and its (attempted) actions both in the fiction and at the meta-level.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Banning obviously impossible action declarations is a hit to my player agency in the fiction; I can't have my PC try impossible things just for kicks.  Note, however, that allowing the declaration and then resolving it by simply saying that such an action is impossible (and if necessary figuring out any ramifications of my attempt) is just fine.
> 
> It's a small difference, but a _very_ significant one, between a) saying I'm not even allowed to declare the action of shooting an arrow at the moon and b) allowing the declaration and then no-roll resolving it by flat-out saying I miss the moon and now let's figure out if that arrow hit anyone when it landed. Option a) denies my player agency; option b) preserves it.



I think you're confused about what is going on in the discussion of actions that violate the credibility test.

Go back to Robin Laws's example from HeroQuest Revised:

As Narrator, you are never obligated to allow a contest just because two characters have abilities that can be brought into conflict. If the character's proposed result would seem abusrd, you disallow the contest, period. . . .​
Read it carefeully: _if the character's proposed result woudl seem absurd _[ie if it violates genre or fictional positioning constraints] then _you disallow the contest _[ie no check is made; the action resolution mechanics are not invoked].

The player is free to describe his/her PC shooting an arrow into the sky aiming at the moon. But (outside the context of some sort of epic fantasy) that does not generate a check to see if the moon is hit.

The premise of Laws's remark is that a system is being used similar to what @chaochou mentioned upthread: namelhy, that if a valid action is declared then the dice are rolled and on a success the player gets what s/he wants for his/her PC, and otherwise the GM narrates a failure.

In a system in which that is not true - ie in which there is no particular connection between _use of the action resolution mechanics_ and _what happens in the shared fiction_ - then Laws's point becomes irrelevant. But that takes us straight back to @chaochou's other point, that where there is no such connection players have little agency.

And this also brings me back to the distinction I drew upthread: the credibiilty test is something which can be negotiated between participants (so players get to exercise their agency just as much as the GM does); action resolution, on the other hand, is a die roll to see whose vision of what happens next is made true.


----------



## prabe

@Fenris-77 

Yeah. I was trying to be as neutral as I could about a style of game that I've bounced off of a few times. The games very probably feel different in play, for people who enjoy them.

And yes, agency and narrative authority do tend to run in parallel, but they're not the same thing--and I think it's worthwhile to at least be able to talk about them separately. I don't think the trade-offs I was talking about are radically different from taking a negative trait in a game with point-based chargen, to get more points: One, the player accepts some relative disability in exchange for greater capabilities; the other, the player accepts some loss of control over the character in exchange for more control over the greater world. (Where "control" isn't about that weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth--I'm just not thinking of a better word for it; I'm not using it to bash any games or players.)


----------



## Fenris-77

I'm not bashing anyone either. Players who come from games like D&D, where narrative authority rests heavily with the GM and the authority they do have is very much concentrated in their character, it's pretty natural that idea of giving some of that authority up doesn't sit well. All I can say is that in most cases that 'give' is located within a larger redistribution of authority that usually results in more player agency, not less.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> I'm not bashing anyone either. Players who come from games like D&D, where narrative authority rests heavily with the GM and the authority they do have is very much concentrated in their character, it's pretty natural that idea of giving some of that authority up doesn't sit well. All I can say is that in most cases that 'give' is located within a larger redistribution of authority that usually results in more player agency, not less.




Felt more like an even-up swap to me, but that's me.

I just wanted to be clear about not bashing Fate (or BitD), because ... well, I have in the past. I might again in the future.  But I'm really not now. And I haven't felt any bashing from the Canadian Arctic, so far as I know we're good.


----------



## pemerton

FrogReaver said:


> Well I don't really think I should be left guessing about what you don't understand about it.  Maybe elaborate a bit on what doesn't make sense to you about the stance?



I don't understand why you distinguish between genre inappproriate fiction and genre inappropriate action declaration. Eg how would one get the first except as a result of the second?



FrogReaver said:


> It's very possible I don't know enough about those other games, but I'm not seeing any such distinction from the examples of them you have given. Every example I read sounded like it was saying "use auto failure to keep the game in genre, etc.



Notice how I distinguished between (i) _establishing what counts as "within genre" and "consistent with the fiction" _- that is something for the table to decide on, with the GM playing a leadership but not an authoritative role - and (ii) _employing the action resolution mechaincs_ which generate an outcome in exactly the way that @chaochou has described: if the check succeeds the player gets what s/he wants for his/her PC; if the check fails the GM narrates the failure.

Your idea of "autofail" is a unilateral GM decision about genre or fictional positioning - it does not involve the negotiated/consensus aspect of (i) but also does not involve the "leave it to the dice" aspect of (ii). It is just the GM unilaterally deciding what happens next. That is what @chaochou is pointing to as negating agency. It's what the games I referred to are trying to avoid.

You may not have the same desire to avoid it as did the designers of those games. But I hope that actual distinction is clear enough. I find it a pretty fundamental distinction in actual play.



FrogReaver said:


> That a GM may delegate authority doesn't negate the fact that it was his authority to delegate.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Even when the mechanic (aka the process of determining success or failure) is "GM Decides" it's always the GM's job to apply and abjudicate the action resolution mechanics.



I assume that you're talking here about your approach to GMing 5e D&D. I'm pretty sure that 5e D&D will also work OK if you approach it having regard to my distinction between (i) and (ii) - I know that 4e D&D works just fine that way, and I don't think 5e is radically different in this respect.

One important consequence of taking seriously the approach I'm setting out is that you will avoid problems like the OP's, because you will not have actions automatcially fail on the basis of elements of the fiction that are not shared but rather exist only in the mind of the GM.



FrogReaver said:


> I don't believe a chess player's agency is taken away because he can't move his knight as a queen.  I believe the agency of a player is defined by the moves they can make inside the game and that those moves cause unique feedback inside the game.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> All styles allow players to change the shared fiction by having their PCs do things.  This even occurs in an instance of auto-failure.  Player had PC attempt to do something -> auto-failure -> shared fiction changes.



I don't think comparisons to chess are very helpful here. In chess players take turns and make moves according to rather rigid rules. In a traditional RPG - which all the games I've talked about in this thread are - there are quite distinct roles with very different powers and responsibilities when it comes to contributing to the shared fiction.

If a player makes a move - it might be better to say _attempts a move_ - that is consistent with the established shared fiction and the broader genre and logic of that fiction, but the GM unilaterally declares it a failure, the player has not exercised agency over the fiction. S/he might have prompted the GM to use the GM's agency - eg _now the Burgomaster is mad at you and calls his guards to take you away_ - but that is not player agency over the fiction. The GM is writing that story. The OP is crystal clear about that much at least.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> So the DM should never say yes?  Everything must be rolled for?



If you ask me to pass you the salt, and I do, I haven't negated your agency. I've facilitated it.

If a player says (speaking for his/her PC) _I go to the shop and buy some rations _and the GM answers _OK, write them down on your equipment list _the GM has not negated the player's agency. The GM has allowed the player to decide what happens in the fiction.

If the GM says, instead, _Rations are hard to come by in these parts. Make your Acquiring Stuff check! _then we have an example of the action resolution framework that @chaochou has already described upthread.

If the GM says, instead, _There are no ration venders around here - it's a wild and desolate place_ we now have two paths we might go down. Is this the GM taking the lead in establishing constraints of fictional positioning and genre? That's something where the players can participate in the negotiation, thus exercising their agency in reaching a consensus.

Is this the GM unilaterally exercising control over the content of the shared fiction, based on his/her prior conception of what that fiction does and doesn't look like? Then we have no player agency, as @chaochou has said. In this case it's obvious that the GM is the one who is controlloing the content of the fiction.

Again: it may be a good thing or a bad thing for the GM to unilaterally exercise control over the content of the fiction. But it can't be true _both _that the GM is exercising unilateral control and that at the very same time the players are exercising their agency.



Maxperson said:


> What if the established fictional constraint results in no chance of success?



I've made many posts about this already. The established fiction is not something that _the GM unilaterally imposes_. It is something that is understood and can be negotiated by the whole table. It is established by the interaction of all the participants, as in any other shared or collective endeavour.

This happens all the time in my experience: different participants make different suggestions about what might be the case in the shared fiction and we work it out. Eg in my game on Sunday the application of action resolution mechanics dictated that one PC had fallen off the boat into the water. The player of that PC then wanted to use his sword to fight the dragon that was responsible for tipping over the boat. But that can only happen if the PC still has his sword on his person!

For Prince Valiant - the game we were playing - that's generally a matter of fictional positioning, ie there is no canonical resolution procedure for retaining or losing possession of one's gear. (Contrast, say, Marvel Heroic RP which does have such a canonical resolution procedure via the Gear limitation.) We quickly agreed that the player did still have possession of his sword, and hence could declare actions about using it to fight the dragon.

In the same session the PC who is Master of the PCs' military order lost an argument with a NPC count about who would lead the charge in the next day's battle. None of the PCs - and none of their players' - was happy with this outcome. They wanted to circumvent it. I had to remind them more than once that the argument had been lost and conceded. They therefore ended up circumventing it by leading their forces out for a night-time raid on the enemy, with the goal of making it be the case that there would not be a charge the next day. This is an example of negotiation and consensus on what exactly is or isn't consistent with the established fiction.

None of this involves unilateral GM decision-making about _what might happen next_.


----------



## pemerton

FrogReaver said:


> It confounds me that someone would only consider it to be player agency over the fiction when a player can exert control over the outcome of a fictional action.  That's definitiely one kind of player agency over the fiction but it isn't the only one.





FrogReaver said:


> In this case it's apparent you are talking player agency in relation to fictional outcomes.  I think that your point about that is so self-evident that no one disagree with it.  The problem arises when you shorten that to player agency as if there's no other kind.
> 
> Let me illustrate the other kind by introducing another mechanic in addition to yours above.  On a 1-3 the player decides the PC action.  On a 4-6 the DM decides the PC action.  This example also illustrates an additional loss of player agency.  The kind that is in relation to declaring PC actions.



I think the reason that @chaochou is not having regard to this other mode of player agency that you are calling out (and which @Lanefan has also called out) is because he is assuming that there is no RPGing in which players don't get to declare actions for their PCs.

Therefore he is focusing on what is variable among different RPGs - both across systems, and across actual instances of play in those systems. And what is variable is the amount of player control over _what happens next in the fiction_.

Now maybe @chaochou si wrong to assume that in every instance of RPGIng the players get to declare actions for their PCs. But in the spirit of using terms carefully, I would tentatively suggest that such a game - whatever exactly it is - _is not a RPG_. Because the players have no role to play in it at all.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> In context with "The GM Decides"--and (I thought) specifically talking about action resolution--I thought it was clear, but I'll try to be clearer.
> 
> Talking specifically about action resolution:
> 
> "The GM Decides" is the GM deciding that there is no doubt about the outcome of an action; either it cannot succeed or it cannot fail.
> 
> "The Dice Decide" is the outcome is in doubt and the dice determine the outcome.



I don't understand what you mean by "the dice determine the outcome". Can you give an example?

All the examples of RPG mechanics that I'm thinking of at the moment involve _a player declaring an action for his/her PC _and then using the dice to find out whether or not the action succeeds. So it is as @chaochou has said: if the player wins the dice roll _s/he decides what happens _(because his/her desired change in the fiction comes true) and if the player loses then the GM decides what happens.

I guess there's one exception I can think of: at least on one interpretation of the relevant rules, in AD&D and Moldvay Basic the GM should roll a reaction roll to establish the starting attitude of NPCs and monsters encountered _whether or not the players have their PCs initiate interaction_. That is not a mechanic that gives players any agency - it is a device the GM uses to randomise the framing of the situation. But that can't be an example of what you have in mind precisely because it is not about action resolution. As I just said, it's about framing.



prabe said:


> The PCs are in a world. They are not the first characters in that world, nor will they be the last. I try to keep the world consistent and occasionally have things happen that are unrelated to the PCs.



Someone somehwere has probably played a game of D&D where this was not true, but I think it's pretty typical.

But it doesn't answer any of my questions. You're talking about the content of the fiction. I'm asking _how is that fiction authored_? _By whom_? _And how is that authored ficiton used in subsequent adjudicaitons of declared actions?_



prabe said:


> If a game is set in the real world, there are going to be things the PCs won't be able to do, and some of those things will be impossible because of the GM's understanding of the real world, which might be different from how the real world objectively works



But now you're just assuming that players dont have agency. From time-to-time I GM games that take place in the "real world" - Cthulhu Dark and most recently Wuthering Heights. The players as much as me get to express views over what can be done in the real world. Eg in one of our Cthulhu Dark sessions the PCs had taken control of a tug boat and the player who knew the most about tug boats told us what could be done with it.

In my games set in non-real worlds - eg my 4e game - the players also help decide what can or can't be done. Eg in that game it was the player of the invoker/wizard who generally took the lead in deciding what was possible to be done with magical effects.

This is why - multiple times upthread now - I have emphasised that _establishing constraints of genre and fictional positioning _can be a matter of negotiation and consensus, in which the players exercise their agency as participants in that process. It need not be unilateral GM authority.

And the fact that it can be negotiated is a reason for distinguishing it from _action resolution procedures _which, in the traditional RPGs that I play, are not about negotiation but rather involve rolling dice to see whether or not the fiction unfolds as the player is hoping for his/her PC.



prabe said:


> It's possible that I'm the only one still in this conversation who separates _player agency_ (the ability to choose what a character does) from _narrative authority_ (the ability to tell the story). The ability to choose--whether to try to swim across the river--is player agency; the ability to describe the result--a current or a monster or angels or a canned leafy green vegetable--is narrative authority. I have played at least one game where narrative authority was not dependent on success in task resolution--so you might fail at a task and have authority to narrate that failure.



As I just posted in reply to @FrogReaver, the definition of _player agency_ that you posit here is uninteresting because in every RPG players have it. It's not something that varies.

@chaochou has made it crystal clear that by _player agency _he means _the ability of the player to change the state of the shared fiction_. Given that, in a traditional RPG, the way a player changes the shared fiction is by declaring actions for his/her PC and then having those resolve, the connection between player agency and action resolution procedures is not coincidental.

If a player can't change the shared fiction; if all s/he can do is prompt the GM to make such changes by describing what it is that his/her PC tries to do; then what is the role of the player in the game?


----------



## pemerton

The question about whether anyone other than the player of a PC can _make it true in the fiction that the PC does such-and-such_ is a different one from _whether or not a player is able to make changes to the fiction_.

Off the top of my head I can't think of any RPG in which _only_ the player of a PC can make it true in the fiction that that PC does such-and-such. Apocalypse World comes pretty close, but the worked examples of play make it clear that the GM is free to talk about stuff the PC does when narrating failures; though that will be mostly colour.

D&D is very permissive in this respect: there are a whole host of GM or other-player moves (in the fiction they are mostly said to be magical effects) that let someone other than the player of a PC say what that PC is doing. This all goes well beyond mere colour.

This doesn't always have to be magic, either. 4e D&D has a monster (I think a type of chained demon?) that can use its chains to manipulate an enemy like a marionette: in mechanical terms this lets the GM, as the player of that monster, declare actions for the PC.

And there are many RPG systems that have social/emotional resolution frameworks that can allow someone other than the player of a PC to say what that PC does. The earliest published version of such a framework I know is the Classic Traveller morale rules (1977). I posted an actual play illustration of this sort of thing not far upthread: in our Prince Valiant game on Sunday the player of the Master of the Order lost the social conflict with the Count, which meant that I as GM got to decide that he agreed to let the Count lead the charge in the next day's battle.

There is no particular correlation here that I can see. AW has a high degree of _player ability to make changes to the fiction_ and a low degree of _capacity for someone other than the player of a PC to make it true in the fiction that that PC does a thing_. MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic has a high degree of both. A game that used GM-decides D&D to play a low- or no-magic game (thus purging out all the charm, fear, etc effects) would have a low degree of both. D&D played with the magic taken straight from the books, and using a GM-decides approach to resolution, will have a low degree of _player ability to make changes to the fiction_ and a high degree of _capacity for someone other than the player of a PC to make it true in the fiction that that PC does a thing_.

As I said, there seems to be no particuar correlation.


----------



## FrogReaver

@pemerton
I will respond more fully later. I have a question.  Isn’t it true that in many games where players dictate fictional outcomes that they can dictate what other PC’s do via those outcomes?  If so isn’t that taking away at least in part some players agency to declare their PCs actions?


----------



## Fenris-77

@FrogReaver - Mostly not, and certainly not necessarily, but sometimes. Even in cases where PCs can effect other PCs, with a persuade attempt for example, the target PC still generally narrates the outcome. PC narration of outcomes is a pretty separate mechanic or rule.


----------



## FrozenNorth

FrogReaver said:


> I know I have seen the argument that it followed from established fiction.  That's part of what the comments about foreshadowing to the players that he would treat any who insulted him harshly was meant to show that the outcome was proper due to established fiction.  It's not an argument I fully buy into - but it was an argument made nonetheless.



The OP did mention that the party had met with other factions seeking to oust the Baron due to his capricious rule and that the party had refused to ally with them.


----------



## Campbell

FrogReaver said:


> @pemerton
> I will respond more fully later. I have a question.  Isn’t it true that in many games where players dictate fictional outcomes that they can dictate what other PC’s do via those outcomes?  If so isn’t that taking away at least in part some players agency to declare their PCs actions?




It depends on the game.

In most Powered By The Apocalypse games the social influence moves will function differently for the players' characters vs NPCs. You always have control of what your character does, but if one players character successfully uses a social influence move you might get experience if you go along or face mechanical penalties or conditions going forward if you do not go along. It's also generally assumed that if a character has Strings on you in Monsterhearts or influence over you in Masks that should affect the decisions you make for your character.

In Sorcerer it is fairly similar. In any social conflict the person who wins applies a penalty to going against them or a bonus for going along with them based on how much they won the conflict by.

Some games like Dogs in the Vineyard and Exalted do have binding social conflicts. The player is always in control of their PC, but may be bound to honor their character being convinced of something or to do something.


----------



## prabe

Wow.

You say this:



pemerton said:


> I don't understand what you mean by "the dice determine the outcome". Can you give an example?




And then you say this:



pemerton said:


> All the examples of RPG mechanics that I'm thinking of at the moment involve _a player declaring an action for his/her PC _and then using the dice to find out whether or not the action succeeds.




Which. Is. Exactly. What. I. Mean.

So, which is it? Do you understand? Do you not understand? Do you understand but you don't know you understand? If you're playing stupid, please stop; I know you're not stupid.



pemerton said:


> I'm asking _how is that fiction authored_? _By whom_? _And how is that authored ficiton used in subsequent adjudicaitons of declared actions?_




I, as DM, author the starting states, which are used as exactly that--starting states, as a large part of the framing for a given adventure. As the game is played, more fiction emerges, which is used as further framing for further adventures. From time to time, I author new starting states, which I endeavor to keep consistent with previous events. In prior conversations, I have referred to this as "instigating" and you have professed to understand what I meant, then.



pemerton said:


> But now you're just assuming that players dont have agency. From time-to-time I GM games that take place in the "real world" - Cthulhu Dark and most recently Wuthering Heights. The players as much as me get to express views over what can be done in the real world. Eg in one of our Cthulhu Dark sessions the PCs had taken control of a tug boat and the player who knew the most about tug boats told us what could be done with it.




I am not presuming the players won't have agency. Something being impossible doesn't negate player agency. The fact you have a player at your table who knows how tugboats operate kept that consistent with reality, but the fact that the operator couldn't (in the absurd) have the tugboat take off like a helicopter doesn't do change the options he has.



pemerton said:


> In my games set in non-real worlds - eg my 4e game - the players also help decide what can or can't be done. Eg in that game it was the player of the invoker/wizard who generally took the lead in deciding what was possible to be done with magical effects.




That sounds more like authorship than agency to me. It's cool that you're so flexible as a GM--I find it hard to maintain coherence in the game world when I allow players the ability to write much in it.



pemerton said:


> This is why - multiple times upthread now - I have emphasised that _establishing constraints of genre and fictional positioning _can be a matter of negotiation and consensus, in which the players exercise their agency as participants in that process. It need not be unilateral GM authority.
> 
> And the fact that it can be negotiated is a reason for distinguishing it from _action resolution procedures _which, in the traditional RPGs that I play, are not about negotiation but rather involve rolling dice to see whether or not the fiction unfolds as the player is hoping for his/her PC.




Sounds to me as though you're talking about being clear what the action is before resolving it. That's good play, I agree. Everyone should be clear on the stakes of an action.



pemerton said:


> [T]he definition of _player agency_ that you posit here is uninteresting because in every RPG players have it. It's not something that varies.
> 
> Given that, in a traditional RPG, the way a player changes the shared fiction is by declaring actions for his/her PC and then having those resolve, the connection between player agency and action resolution procedures is not coincidental.
> 
> If a player can't change the shared fiction; if all s/he can do is prompt the GM to make such changes by describing what it is that his/her PC tries to do; then what is the role of the player in the game?




There are games wherein arguably the players have less agency in the sense of authority over their characters, in exchange for greater ability to re-write the world by Fiat; so, it actually does vary, and it's a different thing from narrative authority.

I don't believe I have said anything to the contrary about player agency and action resolution; I have said that some of the mechanics described don't touch player agency.

As to the last paragraph, the players are more authors of the emergent stories than I am as DM. Their characters are busy changing the world--the shared fiction. That is the role of the players and their characters in the game.


----------



## Campbell

@prabe

I do not understand what you mean by having agency _negated. _Agency is not something you either have or do not have. You have a certain amount of agency over a particular thing.

@FrogReaver
When I talk about the fiction I mean something specific. Not a fiction or a fictional construct. I mean *the* fiction - this shared understanding of the situation our characters find themselves in.

When I speak to player agency *over the fiction* I am specifically referring to the ability of a player to make decisions for their character that will have a material impact on the shared narrative. In most cases this means the ability to meaningfully obtain information my character can depend on, utilize fictional positioning, and declare actions while standing on firm ground that for weal or woe will have a significant impact on the way the situation unfolds.  It may come from the rules of game, disciplined GMing, or the ability of a player to declare how things go.

I am not really fond of that last one personally. When it occurs I prefer significant limitations.

I agree that player agency over the _actions they are allowed to select for their character_ can be an important thing to discuss, but that is not generally what player agency tends to be intended to mean.


----------



## prabe

Campbell said:


> @prabe
> 
> I do not understand what you mean by having agency _negated. _Agency is not something you either have or do not have. You have a certain amount of agency over a particular thing.




When I say something like "Something being impossible doesn't negate player agency?" It doesn't reduce it, it doesn't mean you don't have it. Just because something is impossible doesn't mean the player doesn't have agency; it doesn't mean the player has less agency.

I hope that's clear.


----------



## Campbell

prabe said:


> When I say something like "Something being impossible doesn't negate player agency?" It doesn't reduce it, it doesn't mean you don't have it. Just because something is impossible doesn't mean the player doesn't have agency; it doesn't mean the player has less agency.
> 
> I hope that's clear.




I think part of what is going here is that you are viewing agency through the prism of having more agency over the fiction as being _intrinsically good_. A certain amount of agency over the fiction is good. Too much or too little in the hands of one participant is not good at all.

There are all sorts of limits to our agency over the fiction. First and foremost is our fictional positioning which the ability my character has in the fiction to impact change to the setting or other characters.  Often elements that limit our agency are placed into the fiction for us to overcome. Attempting to change this is the core skill of playing role playing games. Then there are rules limitations (action economies, listed options, mechanics like daily rages that do not correspond to the fiction). There are also social limitations (spotlight issues, GM addressing a different player). All of these things affect our ability to make a material impact on the *shared* fiction.

Here's an example. In most games  a player is only allowed to declare what their character is doing here and now. Any preparation needs to be done prior to setting out. In Blades in the Dark a player has a limited ability to declare actions that were done to prepare for the current situation. So if the players' characters get arrested right after they steal something important a player might declare a a flashback scene where they attempt to setup the arrest and work out a deal with cops prior to the events of the score.

Blades in the Dark removes a common limitation on player agency in a limited fashion (you have to pay for it and you still need the right fictional positioning).


----------



## prabe

@Campbell 

Agency over your _character_ is intrinsically good--it is, at least in more-traditional TRPGs like D&D, what the players can control directly, the only (or at least primary) way they have to shape the fiction. Player agency over the _fiction_ is not exactly the same thing, at least not how I see it.

Speaking primarily about D&D--specifically 5E--because, as I've said before, it's the game at the top of my head at the moment (I know other games operate differently; neither rebuts the other): The players have agency over their characters, and thereby over the fiction. The players' agency over the characters is approximately absolute--barring magical effects like charm spells or draconic presence, the players get to decide what the characters do; their agency over the fiction is limited to what the characters can accomplish.

Looking at that second paragraph, I don't know that it's a hill I'd die on, but I think it's not too bad for something I'm pulling out of my head. Call it a draft, I guess.

I guess, looking at that, I maybe understand why I was so underwhelmed by the flashback mechanic in BitD. (To be clear, I wanted pretty badly to like BitD, and I bounced off it pretty hard.)

I am not as much of a purist about players suggesting things as it might seem from the above. In the example @Fenris-77 posted about the balcony across the alley, I'd probably run it about the same way he would. I might think about where the PC is (which might determine whether there's even an alley in the first place) but if it's reasonable and there's no in-fiction reason to say no, I'd probably say yes. While I find that being the sole (ish) author of the broader world makes it easier for me to keep that world coherent (for my tastes), I see the value of player input, at least on the scene level.


----------



## Manbearcat

I'm only skimming, but this conversation is diverging wildly onto many different subjects.  I'm going to try to say a few things about two different play priorities and how they can diverge and create tension with respect to agency.

*Say "Yes" or Roll the Dice and Play to Find Out*

These are Vincent Baker's beautiful axioms from Dogs in the Vineyard and Apocalypse World.  They're the pithiest way to cut to the heart of emergent, story now gaming.

The ideas are simple.  Don't plan plot.  Create conflict-charged obstacles and situations that provoke the PCs to action (the games' premise).  In the crucible of these conflicts, the players will declare actions for their PCs.  If they're even remotely feasible, either "say yes" or "roll the dice."

The games based on these are "challenging" in a great many ways, but they typically aren't challenging in the way that Classic D&D Dungeon Crawling (say, Moldvay or RC or 1e) is challenging.  They definitely have elements of that and some decision-points and some games definitely have tactical and strategic decision-points at their core (Blades, not a derivative but an AW-offshoot, is chock full of them).

However, the machinery and the primary ethos is about all the participants at the table finding out what happens when thematically-laden PCs meet thematically-provocative obstacles.  These games are nearly fully player-facing.  As such, one of the primary aims of both the ethos and the mechanics is to create a gaming experience/table situation of diffuse authority.  If the authority becomes too concentrated in one party (say, the GM), one or more aspects of these games' fundamental tenets ('play to find out', for instance) suffers or is rendered untenable.  Consequently, GM latitude becomes constrained in comparison to other games (say, 5e D&D) while players' latitude, agency, and responsibility become proportionately increased.

*Skilled-play, Challenge-based D&D*

What happens if we adopt Vincent Baker's axioms fully into an old school dungeon crawl game without taking significant, system-spanning (meaning holistic) mechanical measures to ensure the retained coherency (if not primacy) of the primary play priority (like, say, Torchbearer amazingly does)?

The game falls apart.

You have to have a stocked (denizens, puzzles, treasure, theme) and keyed dungeon with map of sufficient resolution (the architecture and layout needs to be tight with heightened attention to creating navigational decision-points that are compelling and testing...not arbitrary).

The codified map + obstacles and the resolution mechanics (Wandering Monster Clock, Exploration Turns and related mechanics, Monster Reaction, etc) are the most fundamental components of play.

If they aren't codified and of sufficient resolution and/or the GM fudges things (either with respect to the layout of the dungeon or the resolution mechanics), then the competitive integrity of the primary play priority (testing player skill in overcoming the challenge of the delve) is rendered null.

So, porting in the diffuse authority and emergent play of a game like Dogs and AW to Moldvay Basic is completely disastrous (without going to the extreme lengths that Torchbearer goes to)!  Yes, Dogs and AW players have MUCH more authority and related agency...however, that authority/agency creep ported direclty into classic, dungeon-crawl D&D would render play incoherent because you're no longer testing player skill in overcoming the challenge of the delve!

Again, games like Torchbearer and Blades have amazingly managed to pull this off (delve/heist games that also manage emergent story now play)...but the design requirements are MASSIVE.  You can't just adlib your way through it mechanically.  So, failing the unbelievable mechanical rigor of those two games, you're better off understanding the focus of your play and the reasoning that your table's authority (and agency by proxy) is either diffuse or concentrated.  Overwhelmingly in the TTRPG world, you can't have your cake and eat it too (except in the most rare cases like TB and Blades)...and if you think you are, you're almost surely fooling yourself because you're running afoul of either emergent story now or testing skilled-play via challenges...or running afoul of both at any given time.


----------



## Fenris-77

@prabe - A TTRPG character is primarily a set of knobs and dials that allow the player to interact with the diegetic frame, in other words to exert narrative control via an avatar. So to a certain extent there isn't a significant difference between authority over the character and authority over the fiction because the character is a tool specifically design to allow that narrative control over the fiction. For the most part that's how TTRPGs funnel player agency, or narrative control, - through the agency of the avatar as constrained by the rules, mechanics and table contract. That control is generally limited to immediate outcomes and descriptions, one way or another, with more far reaching control generally devolved to the GM, should the game in question actually expect that sort of control.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> @prabe - A TTRPG character is primarily a set of knobs and dials that allow the player to interact with the diegetic frame, in other words to exert narrative control via an avatar. So to a certain extent there isn't a significant difference between authority over the character and authority over the fiction because the character is a tool specifically design to allow that narrative control over the fiction. For the most part that's how TTRPGs funnel player agency, or narrative control, - through the agency of the avatar as constrained by the rules, mechanics and table contract. That control is generally limited to immediate outcomes and descriptions, one way or another, with more far reaching control generally devolved to the GM, should the game in question actually expect that sort of control.




I'm not sure how that's wildly different from what I said--which doesn't mean it's wrong or unhelpful; I sincerely appreciate the explanation. I mean, I'm pretty explicit about limiting player narrative authority (in D&D--other games draw the lines differently) to what their characters can accomplish--I think you'd include that under "rules, mechanics and table contract" but I'm willing to be corrected. I think I'd say that the players, through their characters, are experiencing the story that emerges, sometimes more than they're co-authoring it; I think I'd say the GM is more authoring it (though back when I was writing fiction it often felt as though I was experiencing the stories as I wrote them, so that distinction is perhaps less distinct that it seems at first).


----------



## Lanefan

FrogReaver said:


> I don't believe a chess player's agency is taken away because he can't move his knight as a queen.  I believe the agency of a player is defined by the moves they can make inside the game and that those moves cause unique feedback inside the game.  Losing player agency occurs either when that feedback loop gets temporarily turned off or when a legal move is not permitted.  The first can happen in the "GM Decides" style but isn't required to.  I don't believe it can happen games where a mechanic other than "person Decides" is being used.  The second only happens when a referee makes an incorrect ruling and can occur in any game with a referee.



Disagree on the second one: player agency infringement can also happen (and often does) when a referee makes what would otherwise be a correct-by-the-rules ruling.

For example, there's no rule saying a referee (DM) must allow Evil PCs, thus even though her banning them impacts my agency as a player in what I'm allowed to play and-or how I'm allowed to play it she's still not incorrectly applying any rules.

There's a big difference between "Play what you want as long as it fits in with the setting" (genre-appropriate, it exists there, etc.) and "Play what you want as long as it fits in with the story" (see examples e.g. discouraging romance in @Campbell 's proposed Marvel-Universe-style campaign on page 52 this thread). The second is to me far too restrictive, and tells me one or both of two unpleasant things is in play: either a) the story is seen as more important than the characters (railroad warning), or b) players are discouraged from thinking as individuals (groupthink warning).

Either way: hoist the red flags regarding player agency.



> All styles allow players to change the shared fiction by having their PCs do things.  This even occurs in an instance of auto-failure.  Player had PC attempt to do something -> auto-failure -> shared fiction changes.  Thus, from the definition provided in this quote it doesn't follow that a GM ruling auto failure takes away player agency.  It's not that their attempt at agency has been blocked/negated - it's that they did have their character make a move and that move resulted in a change in the shared fiction.



A ruling of auto-failure doesn't take away player agency.  

Banning the action from being declared in the first place (as some here have suggested) hammers player agency, however.  It's a key - though small - difference.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> But anyway, if what you mean by _the setting has an objective existence outside the PCs_ is that _you author bits of it independent of what the players have their PCs do_, how does that relate to players' action declarations for their PCs?



Easy.  It gives the author (the GM) parameters to work with if and when the PCs' action declarations take them into the previously-independently-authored bits.

If they never go there, it never relates.  Can't see any problems there.


----------



## Lanefan

Campbell said:


> Can we please stop playing definition games? If you know what a poster means when they use a particular word or phrase can you address the content of what they are saying rather than how they express it? This is not debate club.



I hear ya!

Problem is, there's a few in here - not just on one "side" but scattered through the various viewpoints - who have kind of built a reputation for defining terms in their own ways and then using those terms as if their definition was correct.

Needless to say, this ineviatbly leads to those personal definitions being challenged, and away we go...


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> I think you're confused about what is going on in the discussion of actions that violate the credibility test.
> 
> Go back to Robin Laws's example from HeroQuest Revised:
> 
> As Narrator, you are never obligated to allow a contest just because two characters have abilities that can be brought into conflict. If the character's proposed result would seem abusrd, you disallow the contest, period. . . .​
> Read it carefeully: _if the character's proposed result woudl seem absurd _[ie if it violates genre or fictional positioning constraints] then _you disallow the contest _[ie no check is made; the action resolution mechanics are not invoked].



OK, here might be the problem.

"Disallow the contest", by use of the word "disallow", strongly implies (at least to me when I read it) the rules ban the action from even being declared.  This violates player agency.



> The player is free to describe his/her PC shooting an arrow into the sky aiming at the moon. But (outside the context of some sort of epic fantasy) that does not generate a check to see if the moon is hit.



Yet you go on to say this, which shows that in your view the action _can_ be declared but the resolution mechanics can be skipped as the action has zero chance of success. This doesn't violate player agency at all.



> The premise of Laws's remark is that a system is being used similar to what @chaochou mentioned upthread: namelhy, that if a valid action is declared then the dice are rolled and on a success the player gets what s/he wants for his/her PC, and otherwise the GM narrates a failure.



Reading this at face value implies that any action declaration that doesn't result in a die roll is invalid, which I somehow don't think is what you mean.

There's inevitably going to be some action declarations that auto-succeed (I open the [known-to-be-unlocked] door) and some that auto-fail (I try to knock down the castle with a bodycheck); nothing to do with player agency but everything to do with fictional constraints and premises and consistency.


----------



## Campbell

prabe said:


> I'm not sure how that's wildly different from what I said--which doesn't mean it's wrong or unhelpful; I sincerely appreciate the explanation. I mean, I'm pretty explicit about limiting player narrative authority (in D&D--other games draw the lines differently) to what their characters can accomplish--I think you'd include that under "rules, mechanics and table contract" but I'm willing to be corrected. I think I'd say that the players, through their characters, are experiencing the story that emerges, sometimes more than they're co-authoring it; I think I'd say the GM is more authoring it (though back when I was writing fiction it often felt as though I was experiencing the stories as I wrote them, so that distinction is perhaps less distinct that it seems at first).




Personally I am also not really a fan of player narrative authority either. My preferred approach to achieving player agency over the fiction is to have games constrain the GM's agency over the fiction through game mechanics that tell us what happens and/or by instructing the GM on how to perform their role. This creates an environment where players can depend on their fictional positioning thus increasing agency over the fiction.

I juxtapose this against Storyteller play where a GM may change setting details, play NPCs without integrity, rule based on what they want to have happen, and expect players to find the story. Fifth Edition does not necessitate that sort of play, but it fails to meaningfully constrain the GM either.

My preference is that we should all be experiencing together, including the GM. Nobody gets to decide how things should go.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> I think the reason that @chaochou is not having regard to this other mode of player agency that you are calling out (and which @Lanefan has also called out) is because he is assuming that there is no RPGing in which players don't get to declare actions for their PCs.



There's really no RPG system in which players don't get to declare actions for their PCs but there's many instances - often on a table-by-table basis even within the same system - in which the actions they can declare are somehow limited beyond just what genre and fictional premises would allow.



> Therefore he is focusing on what is variable among different RPGs - both across systems, and across actual instances of play in those systems. And what is variable is the amount of player control over _what happens next in the fiction_.



Anlso variable is how - as in by what mechanical or narrative means - that-thing-that-happens next point is arrived at.

5e D&D (and all D&D, I think) as written, for example, gives the DM complete control over the mechanics in terms of when they are invoked: you don't roll a check or an attack roll or anything else unless the DM tells you to.  Players can't by RAW just arbitrarily roll, unless some form of Inspiration allows it.

But the tradeoff is that the players are - or should be - very free to declare whatever actions they want.  Those actions are then fed into the DM's mechanics processor that has, at its root, four possible outcomes: auto-success, success-by-roll, fail-by-roll, or auto-fail.  On success the player gets what she wants (and has often already narrated the proposed fiction-on-success as part of the initial decoararion); on fail the DM narrates what - if anything - happens next.


----------



## prabe

@Campbell 

That is very much how I endeavor to GM. To the extent that as a GM it feels less like experiencing the story, it's because I have more on my mind. It's harder, I think, to let go and let story, when I'm thinking about what is changing and what the in-world response/s will be. That's an argument for being well-prepared, but GMing IME requires more bandwidth than playing (again, talking about 5E and similar games).


----------



## Lanefan

Campbell said:


> I agree that player agency over the _actions they are allowed to select for their character_ can be an important thing to discuss, but that is not generally what player agency tends to be intended to mean.



For my part this is exactly what player agency is all about: the agency over what actions I can select for my PC, and what I can have my PC try to do, and how, and when; and what personality or outlooks or alignment or whatever it possesses.


----------



## FrogReaver

chaochou said:


> I started by stating that player agency is the ability to generate fictional outcomes. If you had an alternate view you could just have said so, instead of trying, and failing, to play semantics around dice, mechanics and probabilities.




There's really no need to be so rude.



> You now agree with me that “GM decides” offers no player agency with regards to fictional outcomes. In fact, it’s now ‘self-evident’.




Yes.  I might need to refine that agreement a bit, but essentially yes.  I believe there is a large subset of fictional outcomes that "GM Decides" offers a player no agency over.  There is one smaller subset of fictional outcomes the player does have agency over - his PC's actions - because PC actions are also fictional outcomes.



> I reject the idea that play of a game can be done without the ability to change the game state. And the game state in an rpg is changed by making new propositions about what is true in the game world.




I fully reject that first idea idea as well.  But I would point out that there doesn't exist an RPG out there where the players have no ability to change the game state.  Note that this doesn't imply that every single proposition they make needs to have a chance of success - only that some propositions they make need to have a chance for success.  I would also like to point out that declaring a PC action is one way of making a new proposition in the game world.


----------



## FrogReaver

Fenris-77 said:


> I'm not bashing anyone either. Players who come from games like D&D, where narrative authority rests heavily with the GM and the authority they do have is very much concentrated in their character, it's pretty natural that idea of giving some of that authority up doesn't sit well. All I can say is that in most cases that 'give' is located within a larger redistribution of authority that usually results in more player agency, not less.




Given that we are discussing 2 types of player agency, the obvious question to me is not whether summing up the agencies results in a greater net agency, but whether we should be weighting one type of agency as generally more important.  I would tend to think that player agency of character actions is more important there but I'm sure others have different ideas.


----------



## Fenris-77

FrogReaver said:


> Given that we are discussing 2 types of player agency, the obvious question to me is not whether summing up the agencies results in a greater net agency, but whether we should be weighting one type of agency as generally more important.  I would tend to think that player agency of character actions is more important there but I'm sure others have different ideas.



It's not really about one kind of agency, or two kinds, not really. Agency, broad descriptor that that is, comes it bits and pieces from all over the game. You get some bigger chunks in the places we're talking about, but there's a lot that comes from elsewhere, one nugget at a time. It depends on the rules set, the modifications to that rules set, the table expectations of that rules set, genre conventions, etc etc etc.

If you want to talk about sums and parts, I think it makes more sense to look at it holistically, from the player facing side, answering a question like_ how much control do feel you have over the story you are helping to tell_? People might not be able to bang out an academic treatise about exactly how their rules and table works vis a vis agency, but I bet they can answer that one question. Using specific games as points on the continuum also helps locate your game, or tastes. D&D run older-school style tends to be fairly low agency, while a game like FATE is at the higher end (much higher depending on the exact FATE game) with PbtA falling in the middle, probably closer to FATE than D&D.

My personal preference lines up pretty neatly with @Campbell in that I prefer the more even distribution of agency of the PbtA games and other games that are fiction first, or play to find out what happens. If you collected all my posts about how I run D&D, it is very much informed by that preference. (my apolgies to @Campbell if I'm misremembering here).


----------



## FrogReaver

Campbell said:


> I do not understand what you mean by having agency _negated. _Agency is not something you either have or do not have. You have a certain amount of agency over a particular thing.




The more I think on that the more I'm not sure that's true.  I have no idea what one-half agency or one-quarter agency would look like.  To me that's pretty strong evidence that agency cannot be quantified, that it's binary.  That said I think we can talk about the distribution of player agency over discrete fictional outcomes that occur within a given play experience.  I suspect this is what you actually mean and that is something non-binary that we can quantify.



> I agree that player agency over the _actions they are allowed to select for their character_ can be an important thing to discuss, but that is not generally what player agency tends to be intended to mean.




For myself, @prabe, @Lanefan and many others, player agency tends to be intended to mean that we have control over our characters actions.


----------



## FrogReaver

One thing I've noticed is that there is a tendency for some to equate player agency with having no restrictions on PC action declaration.  I believe that restrictions on PC action declaration don't necessarily impact player agency of PC actions in any way.  That was one point I was bringing to light in my chess example.  Your player agency over your pieces isn't limited because you cannot move your knight as a queen.  Being constrained by the agreed upon rules of the game _(for an RPG this includes social contracts, houserules, etc)_ never constrains player agency.


----------



## Campbell

FrogReaver said:


> One thing I've noticed is that there is a tendency for some to equate player agency with having no restrictions on PC action declaration.  I believe that restrictions on PC action declaration don't necessarily impact player agency of PC actions in any way.  That was one point I was bringing to light in my chess example.  Your player agency over your pieces isn't limited because you cannot move your knight as a queen.  Being constrained by the agreed upon rules of the game _(for an RPG this includes social contracts, houserules, etc)_ never constrains player agency.




When you talk about it in that way you pretty much render the concept of agency useless as a comparative analysis tool. Limitations that we accept are still limitations. The whole point is to be able to meaningfully talk about what is actually going on in any moment of play.


----------



## Lanefan

FrogReaver said:


> One thing I've noticed is that there is a tendency for some to equate player agency with having no restrictions on PC action declaration.  I believe that restrictions on PC action declaration don't necessarily impact player agency of PC actions in any way.  That was one point I was bringing to light in my chess example.  Your player agency over your pieces isn't limited because you cannot move your knight as a queen.  Being constrained by the agreed upon rules of the game _(for an RPG this includes social contracts, houserules, etc)_ never constrains player agency.



I differentiate between the actual rules of the game, which in theory constrain everyone equally, and things like social contracts and houserules which can very much constrain one table in comparison with another.


----------



## Fenris-77

The equal restraint the comes from rules of the game is indeed only theoretical.  At least with D&D, actual practice isn't really that even. The adjudication rules for D&D leave a whole lotta wiggle room, as evidenced by our endless round of threads in EW about just that topic.  Other games don't have quite the same range of implementations of their rules sets. That's neither good nor bad, just a thing.


----------



## pemerton

FrogReaver said:


> I will respond more fully later. I have a question.  Isn’t it true that* in many games where players dictate fictional outcomes that they can dictate what other PC’s do via those outcomes?*  If so isn’t that taking away at least in part some players agency to declare their PCs actions?



I've bolded the key sentence. It might cover a lot of ground.

If I declare an action _I kill the orc_ and then I succeed on my action (in some systems that might be winning an opposed check; in D&D that normally means making a successful to-hit roll and then making a good damage roll) then other players _can't declare as their action I talk to the orc_ because the fictional positioning won't let them (unless they change the fictional positioning in some way (eg in D&D that could be using a Speak with Dead spell).

In that sense any change to the ficiton ramifies down the line to future action declarations.

In some systems, social conflict resolutions which, in fictional terms, brining it about that someone is _persuaded_ or _cowed _or _ensorcelled_ or the like create, in mechanical terms, hard constraints on action declaration similar to the orc being dead. This is how Duel of Wits works in Burning Wheel: if you lose, there are actions that are off the table for your character. It's also how I adjudicate Prince Valiant (the rules there are a bit more vague or incomlete than BW) as in the examples of play I posted about upthread. As farr as the actua process of play is concerned, the comparison to the dead orc is literal, not analogy or metaphor. I thik we all can see that, if player B declares _I talk to the orc _after player A's PC has killed it, the correct response is _You can't - the orc's dead_ so in these systems. So, absolutely identically, in the systems I'm describing in this paragraph f the player delcares _I get ready to lead the charge_ after another character has won the social contest to extract agreement that he will lead the charge, the correct respoinse is _You can't -you agreed to let so-and-so lead the charge, remember?_

That's not the only way of handling that sort of change in the fictional positioning. In some systems (I'm thinking some PbtA and also Cortex+ Heroic) the player might take penalties to checks that push against what the dominating character wants the PC to do. In Cortext + Heroic that sort of penalty functions (mechanically) just like injury or exhaustion - they all operate as buffs to the opposed check - and if it gets big enough then it takes the character out of play just like too much exhaustion would. In the exhaustion case the GM gets to narrate the PC collapsing for physical reasons; in the emotional or influence case the GM gets to narrate the PC collapsing from stress, or doing something else appropriate to the influence that has been exerted.

I've never played Fate, but I think the structure of compels is roughly comparable to this: if the player ignores the influence/constraint, s/he takes a mechanical penalty (in Fate, that takes the form of a resource expenditure).

Burning Wheel has another interesting mechanical framework in this general terrain: in BW each charcter has a Steel attribute, and if you fail a Steel chck you have to choose from one of four options to choose from: run screaming, swoon, fall prone and beg for mercy, or stand and drool. So the ficitonal positioning (_I failed my Steel check, so my character's courage has failedi_) not only precludes action declarations that would contradict that fiction but correlats to a tight mechanical constraint on what happens next. Classic Traveller has morale rules that look like a bit like this, too: if you fail the check you have to declare your character either breaking or surrendering (at some tables maybe the GM decides this rather than the player, in which case see below).

Yet another mechanical possibility occurred in my BW game (BW is a very mechanically interesting, complex and flesible system): when a dark naga ensorcelled a PC, I had theplayer rewrite one of his PCs' Beliefs to recognise the new situation, which then - within the structure of that game - changes his incentives in playing the PC. The analogue in D&D 5e would be changing an Ideal or a Bond.

In D&D (all editions, I think) there can be mechanical effects on a character (PC or NPC) that allow control over that character's action declarations to be changed. Rolemaster also has those effects. I imagine so do other RPGs that are to a greater or lesser extent in the mould of D&D. I suspect there are some Classic Traveller tables that run morale like this too - ie that failing a morale check lets the GM dictate actions for the PCs whose morale has broken.

From the point of view of _burdens on play agency_, what is significant about this last category of mechanical effect is not that _it lets someone else make things true in the fiction of your PC_, but rather than _for the moment you can't declare actins for yur PC_. It's like the PC being dead, or drugged, or utterly immobilised because bound and gagged.

EDIT: I just saw that this post is an appendix to posts that @Campbell and @Fenris-77 already made.


----------



## Campbell

So a fundamental conceit important to my understanding of role playing games (related to agency) is that the fiction is shared. Once anyone introduces something to the fiction it no longer belongs to just them. You are tacitly agreeing to allow the characters you introduce or setting elements be affected and changed by what goes on in the fiction. You do not really get to decide and limit how they will be affected, although emotional safety and creative boundary stuff will apply.

This manifests itself slightly differently in more challenge focused games. The emotional state of a B/X character is not under threat, but it is also like not a focus of play. Still you can be poisoned, diseased, subjected to all manner of spells, paralyzed, turned to stone, and/or  level drained. All manner of nasty things can happen to you.

For their part the referee must play the dungeon denizens with integrity and make fair impartial rulings. They must respect your fictional positioning and let things play out. They are bound by things like wandering monster tables, morale rolls, and reaction rolls.

In a more character focused environment the expectation is that everyone is playing their characters with integrity - letting what happens in the fiction affect  their characters physically, mentally, and emotionally. This includes the GM. They must play the world with integrity. No gets to hold on to their conceptions of things. No character concepts - only characters.

If we are all protecting the things we think we own and setting up carefully constructed boundaries of how we will allow other players to affect them there can be no real meaningful agency over the fiction. Agency over the shared fiction is dependent on playing with people who are vulnerable enough to allow their conceptions of the setting, characters, and relationships to meaningfully change.

I think in many ways agency over the shared fiction and agency over the content we create are opposing forces. Assuming equitable relationships and not naughty word ones (where I can affect your stuff and you cannot affect mine) the more agency we have over our stuff the less everyone else has over it. Agency then becomes this elaborate maze of *walled of gardens* where we must carefully negotiate the ones in which we can effect each others stuff.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Campbell said:


> So a fundamental conceit important to my understanding of role playing games (related to agency) is that the fiction is shared. Once anyone introduces something to the fiction it no longer belongs to just them. You are tacitly agreeing to allow the characters you introduce or setting elements be affected and changed by what goes on in the fiction. You do not really get to decide and limit how they will be affected, although emotional safety and creative boundary stuff will apply.
> 
> This manifests itself slightly differently in more challenge focused games. The emotional state of a B/X character is not under threat, but it is also like not a focus of play. Still you can be poisoned, diseased, subjected to all manner of spells, paralyzed, turned to stone, and/or  level drained. All manner of nasty things can happen to you.
> 
> For their part the referee must play the dungeon denizens with integrity and make fair impartial rulings. They must respect your fictional positioning and let things play out. They are bound by things like wandering monster tables, morale rolls, and reaction rolls.
> 
> In a more character focused environment the expectation is that everyone is playing their characters with integrity - letting what happens in the fiction affect  their characters physically, mentally, and emotionally. This includes the GM. They must play the world with integrity. No gets to hold on to their conceptions of things. No character concepts - only characters.
> 
> If we are all protecting the things we think we own and setting up carefully constructed boundaries of how we will allow other players to affect them there can be no real meaningful agency over the fiction. Agency over the shared fiction is dependent on playing with people who are vulnerable enough to allow their conceptions of the setting, characters, and relationships to meaningfully change.
> 
> I think in many ways agency over the shared fiction and agency over the content we create are opposing forces. Assuming equitable relationships and not naughty word ones (where I can affect your stuff and you cannot affect mine) the more agency we have over our stuff the less everyone else has over it. Agency then becomes this elaborate maze of *walled of gardens* where we must carefully negotiate the ones in which we can effect each others stuff.



I think this ties back into the discussion about the fate of characters no longer in play and who owns them.


----------



## FrogReaver

Campbell said:


> When you talk about it in that way you pretty much render the concept of agency useless as a comparative analysis tool. Limitations that we accept are still limitations. The whole point is to be able to meaningfully talk about what is actually going on in any moment of play.




I suspect this is one of the problems with us communicating.  I don't care whether the concept of player agency in any respect is useful as a comparative analysis tool and I don't understand why you or anyone else would either.  I care about the concept of player agency itself and am willing to explore what impacts focusing on different types and mixtures of player agency has on games.  I honestly don't see how this discussion and framework can't yield meaningful talk as long as all sides are willing to engage in it.


----------



## FrogReaver

Lanefan said:


> I differentiate between the actual rules of the game, which in theory constrain everyone equally, and things like social contracts and houserules which can very much constrain one table in comparison with another.




I believe the important rules are the ones the table is engaging with at the moment of play.  Why would any other rules matter when discussing what is happening in play?  That's not to say there's not a meaningful distinction in many respects between houserules and social contracts and RAW, but I'm not sure any of that differentiation matters for this discussion.  If you think it's important maybe you could elaborate on your reasoning a bit than simply stating it to be the case?


----------



## FrogReaver

Fenris-77 said:


> If you want to talk about sums and parts, I think it makes more sense to look at it holistically, from the player facing side, answering a question like_ how much control do feel you have over the story you are helping to tell_? People might not be able to bang out an academic treatise about exactly how their rules and table works vis a vis agency, but I bet they can answer that one question. Using specific games as points on the continuum also helps locate your game, or tastes. D&D run older-school style tends to be fairly low agency, while a game like FATE is at the higher end (much higher depending on the exact FATE game) with PbtA falling in the middle, probably closer to FATE than D&D.




1.  Please don't accuse me of wanting to talk about sums and parts when I'm not the one that first made mention of that concept in this discussion.

2.  The question of "how much control do you feel you have over the story you are helping to tell" is only a meaningful indicator of a single type of player agency.  It doesn't address the other type/types though.

3.  D&D has never been low agency.  You have complete agency over your characters actions (or at least nearly so).  D&D is low agency in respect to granting a player agency over fictional outcomes - but that's basically tautological at this point - you've defined agency to solely mean "control over fictional outcomes" and therefore since D&D doesn't allow for player control of fictional outcomes you say it has no player agency.

4.  Even control over fictional outcomes is a dubious way of saying it - as all PC actions are fictional outcomes of some circumstance and since players control PC actions - even in D&D they do have player agency over (some) fictional outcomes.

Heck, wasn't it you that earlier sympathized with @prabe about how other games can seem a bit off to a traditional D&D player because they override a players control over his character and that's all such a player has ever known?


----------



## FrogReaver

Campbell said:


> I think in many ways agency over the shared fiction and agency over the content we create are opposing forces. Assuming equitable relationships and not naughty word ones (where I can affect your stuff and you cannot affect mine) the more agency we have over our stuff the less everyone else has over it.




Agreed.  That's what I've been trying to point out.  I find it pretty amazing how you are disagreeing with my posts and ending up in the same place as me.

However, I think it's also important to add that having agency over the content we create within the shared fiction provides in itself at least a small bit of agency over the shared fiction.


----------



## Fenris-77

1. I did no such thing, I was just using a holistic example. I have no idea how that ended up offending you. 

2. If you wanted to ask someone who hadn't read this thread to describe the level of player agency in their game, that's the kind of question you'd ask. That's important because the nuts and bolts are, one, not interesting to everyone, and, two, pretty obviously easy to get all tangled up in.

3. It is low agency, not that that's a bad thing, and you missed the descriptor 'old school', so OSR style play, which is very low agency (by design, and that's not bad). I also defined agency in no such simple way, and in fact have gone out of my way to index just how non-single source the idea is. You also seem to be using fictional in place of narrative, which isn't helpful, narrative goes places, fiction is just made up stuff. Also, if you think D&D allows no agency to players over the narrative you have somehow badly misunderstood the last many pages of this thread.

4. Dubious. Huh. I don't even know how to respond to that. 'Fictional outcomes' is a very different thing than narrative control, or, more precisely, control over the diegetic frame. In other words, control over the unfolding of the shared story. It's way more granular and nuanced than just outcomes, which seems from your post to mean, for you, something more like action adjudication. I'm not sure though, you've got your own set of vocabulary going here.

5. Yeah, I did, specifically about control over character relative to the use of persuade type skills, which is very different in some other games than it is in D&D. What's your point?


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> I've bolded the key sentence. It might cover a lot of ground.
> 
> If I declare an action _I kill the orc_ and then I succeed on my action (in some systems that might be winning an opposed check; in D&D that normally means making a successful to-hit roll and then making a good damage roll) then other players _can't declare as their action I talk to the orc_ because the fictional positioning won't let them (unless they change the fictional positioning in some way (eg in D&D that could be using a Speak with Dead spell).
> 
> In that sense any change to the fiction ramifies down the line to future action declarations.
> 
> In some systems, social conflict resolutions which, in fictional terms, brining it about that someone is _persuaded_ or _cowed _or _ensorcelled_ or the like create, in mechanical terms, hard constraints on action declaration similar to the orc being dead. This is how Duel of Wits works in Burning Wheel: if you lose, there are actions that are off the table for your character. It's also how I adjudicate Prince Valiant (the rules there are a bit more vague or incomplete than BW) as in the examples of play I posted about upthread. As far as the actual process of play is concerned, the comparison to the dead orc is literal, not analogy or metaphor. I think we all can see that, if player B declares _I talk to the orc _after player A's PC has killed it, the correct response is _You can't - the orc's dead_ so in these systems. So, absolutely identically, in the systems I'm describing in this paragraph f the player declares _I get ready to lead the charge_ after another character has won the social contest to extract agreement that he will lead the charge, the correct response is _You can't -you agreed to let so-and-so lead the charge, remember?_
> 
> That's not the only way of handling that sort of change in the fictional positioning. In some systems (I'm thinking some PbtA and also Cortex+ Heroic) the player might take penalties to checks that push against what the dominating character wants the PC to do. In Cortext + Heroic that sort of penalty functions (mechanically) just like injury or exhaustion - they all operate as buffs to the opposed check - and if it gets big enough then it takes the character out of play just like too much exhaustion would. In the exhaustion case the GM gets to narrate the PC collapsing for physical reasons; in the emotional or influence case the GM gets to narrate the PC collapsing from stress, or doing something else appropriate to the influence that has been exerted.
> 
> I've never played Fate, but I think the structure of compels is roughly comparable to this: if the player ignores the influence/constraint, s/he takes a mechanical penalty (in Fate, that takes the form of a resource expenditure).
> 
> Burning Wheel has another interesting mechanical framework in this general terrain: in BW each charcter has a Steel attribute, and if you fail a Steel chck you have to choose from one of four options to choose from: run screaming, swoon, fall prone and beg for mercy, or stand and drool. So the ficitonal positioning (_I failed my Steel check, so my character's courage has failedi_) not only precludes action declarations that would contradict that fiction but correlats to a tight mechanical constraint on what happens next. Classic Traveller has morale rules that look like a bit like this, too: if you fail the check you have to declare your character either breaking or surrendering (at some tables maybe the GM decides this rather than the player, in which case see below).
> 
> Yet another mechanical possibility occurred in my BW game (BW is a very mechanically interesting, complex and flesible system): when a dark naga ensorcelled a PC, I had the player rewrite one of his PCs' Beliefs to recognise the new situation, which then - within the structure of that game - changes his incentives in playing the PC. The analogue in D&D 5e would be changing an Ideal or a Bond.
> 
> In D&D (all editions, I think) there can be mechanical effects on a character (PC or NPC) that allow control over that character's action declarations to be changed. Rolemaster also has those effects. I imagine so do other RPGs that are to a greater or lesser extent in the mould of D&D. I suspect there are some Classic Traveller tables that run morale like this too - ie that failing a morale check lets the GM dictate actions for the PCs whose morale has broken.
> 
> From the point of view of _burdens on play agency_, what is significant about this last category of mechanical effect is not that _it lets someone else make things true in the fiction of your PC_, but rather than _for the moment you can't declare actins for yur PC_. It's like the PC being dead, or drugged, or utterly immobilised because bound and gagged.
> 
> EDIT: I just saw that this post is an appendix to posts that @Campbell and @Fenris-77 already made.




This post made me think on situations in past gaming where a PC vs PC agenda manifested aggressively during play and how it intersected with the conversation of agency, fictional positioning, and adjudication.

In my 2nd full 1-30 4e game, there was a Shapeshifter Druid, a Duelist Rogue, and a F/M (Bladesinger).

One of the key Paragon Tier conflicts was against the Winter Fey of the Feywild.   A cadre of warrior diplomats met the 3 PCs with a series of demands.   This was framed as a level +2, Complexity 2 Skill Challenge for the PCs to get what they wanted (the Winter Fey to compromise by acquiescing on the key part of their demands that the PCs weren't going to give up while accepting something else in return).  The PCs failed the social conflict and it turned violent.

However, in the course of the social conflict, the Eladrin Bladesinger PC had established a potential relationship with a young Winter Fey Knight that reminded him of himself (a Ronin-like youth with potential who needed a proper master).  

So in the course of the ensuing combat, the Eladrin PC wanted to (a) protect the young Fey Knight from his own allies, while (b) dispatching the rest of the Winter Fey and (c) convincing the young Eladrin to join them and accept his offer to train him and give him a way out.

So what ended up transpiring after the player declared this intent was that I had to devise a coinciding Social Skill Challenge with the life and pupil:teacher relationship of the PC Bladesinger and the NPC Winter Fey Knight at stake.  In the course of doing this in 4e, a GM (as you know), has to very carefully consider (a) action economy (Standard and appropriate Immediate Actions - defending the Fey Knight against the Rogue PC's attacks) along with (b) the Level and Complexity of the SC (level+1 and Complexity 1).

Then the player has to consider all of the following:


Their own action economy (he has to slay the rest of his enemies, protect his allies, all while interacting with and protecting this prospective pupil from his own allies).
The relevant fictional positioning to do all of the above.  More specifically, he needed to stay adjacent to the young Fey Knight so he could spend his 2 Encounter Powers to protect adjacent allies as an Immediate Action when they face attack.  He spent both of these in doing so (against the Rogue PC who was his antagonist in this situation) and each earned him a Success in his Skill Challenge.
Ultimately, he ended up winning (the 2 Immediate Action Protection moves along with a successful Suggestion move and an Athletics move accompanied by an Action Point that ended up devastating the leader of the Winter Fey in single combat) the social Skill Challenge (which was nested in the greater Combat) while simultaneously helping his allies dispatch the rest of the Winter Fey.

I didn't think of this before, but its a very interesting contrast to the what happened in the lead post.  And the fact that the Rogue player was happy with this interesting arrangement (while his character was the primary antagonist and very begrudgingly accepted this turn of events) and gladly respected the mechanically cemented, thematic victory of the Bladesinger (which won the player, and by proxy the group, a Companion Character) speaks to @Campbell 's recent posts about acceptance of play (specifically mechanically cemented results) that challenges a player's conception of their character, thus lending toward a proposal of altering the shared fiction (in this case, the Rogue and his conception of "nothing but death" for enemies that threaten the lives of himself and his charges/companions; born of his time as a Naval Captain, his love of his crew, and the ruthlessness at sea of the pirates he constantly faced).


----------



## FrogReaver

Fenris-77 said:


> 1. I did no such thing, I was just using a holistic example. I have no idea how that ended up offending you.




You said "If you want to talk about sums and parts" which implies that I want to talk about sums and parts when I don't.  And more importantly it read as a rather dismissive opening to whatever counterpoint you were going to make.  That perceived dismissiveness and incorrectness of the statement caused the offense, but apparently based on your comment here it was not intended as such.  With no offense intended I no longer take it as such.



> 2. If you wanted to ask someone who hadn't read this thread to describe the level of player agency in their game, that's the kind of question you'd ask. That's important because the nuts and bolts are, one, not interesting to everyone, and, two, pretty obviously easy to get all tangled up in.




I disagree and more importantly I already explained why.  You are just restating the same thing here without giving one word to my objection.  For your convenience I've reposted it.

The question of "how much control do you feel you have over the story you are helping to tell" is only a meaningful indicator of a single type of player agency.  It doesn't address the other type/types



> 3. It is low agency, not that that's a bad thing, and you missed the descriptor 'old school', so OSR style play, which is very low agency (by design, and that's not bad). I also defined agency in no such simple way, and in fact have gone out of my way to index just how non-single source the idea is.




1.  No one here is bound by your definition of agency.  That said, I do try to address what you mean and not just the term you are using.
2.  If your definition of agency is not so simple, then it's very possible I missed something important from it.
3.  Repeating yourself that D&D is low agency isn't helpful.  My point was that there are at least 2 types of player agency and so your statement isn't entirely correct.  You could maybe address why you disagree with my point instead of repeating yourself?



> You also seem to be using fictional in place of narrative, which isn't helpful, narrative goes places, fiction is just made up stuff. Also, if you think D&D allows no agency to players over the narrative you have somehow badly misunderstood the last many pages of this thread.




Hmmmm.... let me get this straight, you are telling me I've using a wrong term which I would be willing to discuss, but then you tell me that based on the term I'm not even using that I've badly misunderstood everything.

IMO it's more likely that I'm using the term in a way that doesn't align with how you use any of your terms and that to reconcile that difference you are trying to force my use of the term to align to a different term of yours even though it doens't.  I mean it would be a lot simpler for you if I was simply using fictional as you use narrative.  That's what I believe is happening here.



> 4. Dubious. Huh. I don't even know how to respond to that. 'Fictional outcomes' is a very different thing than narrative control, or, more precisely, control over the diegetic frame. In other words, control over the unfolding of the shared story. It's way more granular and nuanced than just outcomes, which seems from your post to mean, for you, something more like action adjudication. I'm not sure though, you've got your own set of vocabulary going here.




I don't think mine is particularly unique - others seem to understand me pretty well and a lot of vocabulary on this topic is based on what others have said.  That said, you say "fictional outcomes" very different than narrative control.  So please give me an example of a fictional outcome, or maybe even a few.  I'd like to see for myself how they actually differ.



> 5. Yeah, I did, specifically about control over character relative to the use of persuade type skills, which is very different in some other games than it is in D&D. What's your point?




Point was Just that you appeared you understand the impact and importance of what was going on there and now it appears you are taking quite a different position.


----------



## Lanefan

First off, kudos for a well-thought-out post.


Campbell said:


> This manifests itself slightly differently in more challenge focused games. The emotional state of a B/X character is not under threat, but it is also like not a focus of play. Still you can be poisoned, diseased, subjected to all manner of spells, paralyzed, turned to stone, and/or  level drained. All manner of nasty things can happen to you.
> 
> For their part the referee must play the dungeon denizens with integrity and make fair impartial rulings. They must respect your fictional positioning and let things play out. They are bound by things like wandering monster tables, morale rolls, and reaction rolls.
> 
> In a more character focused environment the expectation is that everyone is playing their characters with integrity - letting what happens in the fiction affect  their characters physically, mentally, and emotionally. This includes the GM. They must play the world with integrity. No gets to hold on to their conceptions of things. No character concepts - only characters.



I'd like to throw this in here: these two things IME are not necessarily an either-or proposition.

While you're quite right that all manner of nasty things can happen to you in a challenge-focused game, one could argue the same could (and-or should?) be true - or be able to be true - in a character-focused game.  That many systems seem not to have these options available is IMO a shortcoming.

And players can - and IME some very often do - allow what happens in the fiction to affect their characters physically and-or mentally and-or emotionally even in an otherwise challenge-based environment.  It might not be a focus of play for the whole table, or even for the system, but it is for that player playing that character; and the system doesn't forbid it.

And one hopes that in ANY system the GM is making fair impartial rulings and running the setting and its NPC inhabitants with integrity and sincerity.

I don't know what you mean by this, however: "no character concepts, only characters".  Are you referring perhaps to playing one's PC only in the here-and-now rather than worrying about its build-out over the next however-many levels? If yes, I'm with ya there!  But if no, unless one's going full-on old-school and playing what the dice give you, it's kinda hard to have a character without first having a concept for it; thus my confusion as to your statement.


----------



## Lanefan

FrogReaver said:


> I believe the important rules are the ones the table is engaging with at the moment of play.  Why would any other rules matter when discussing what is happening in play?  That's not to say there's not a meaningful distinction in many respects between houserules and social contracts and RAW, but I'm not sure any of that differentiation matters for this discussion.  If you think it's important maybe you could elaborate on your reasoning a bit than simply stating it to be the case?



How to put this and not go on all night with it?

If I'm reading things right, we're discussing what happens in play with regards to player agency; and how either can/will/does impact the other - right?

So, overriding influences e.g. social contracts, houserules, etc. can and often are felt in the immediate here-and-now of play.  An example: if my idea for a character going in was to be Evil-aligned but I find Evil PCs are not allowed at that table, that affects my play at every moment.  Or, if my idea for my character is to be a hopelessly romantic flirt and I find there's a social contract banning PC romances (or that they'll always be kept offscreen), that too will affect my play at every moment.

In both cases that constant and ongoing effect on my here-and-now play will simply be that I'm not able to play the character I wanted.  I'm either playing a watered-down or amended version of the concept I first had in mind, or I'm playing something completely different because my first concept has been negated by a houserule.  Either way, my agency's taken a kick in the head - I can't play the character I originally wanted and therefore I can't affect the fiction in ways I might have otherwise.

You're not always engaging with every rule.  Travel rules, for example, are rather irrelevant when standing in a throne room talking to a courtier.  But some rules - mostly those dealing with things like allowable character personalities, racial traits, and other 'always-on' stuff - you're engaging with at every turn. Most of the time that engagement is invisible; it's when it's not invisible that problems arise, usually to the detriment of player agency.


----------



## Manbearcat

FrogReaver said:


> That said, you say "fictional outcomes" very different than narrative control. So please give me an example of a fictional outcome, or maybe even a few. I'd like to see for myself how they actually differ.




If I had to wager a guess as to what @Fenris-77 is meaning here, he is saying:

Fictional Outcomes - Any change to the gamestate and attendant shared fiction of a declared action by a table participant.

Narrative Control - The ability to assert a thing happens within the setting external to a player's PC's immediate (temporally and spatial in that particular fictional situation) ability to influence/put into a effect.

For instance, in 5e Fictional Outcome:

Player:  I attempt to jump across the gorge on horseback.

GM:  <Yes, no, roll dice>  Gamestate/fiction changes as a result.

5e Narrative Control (PCs are in a jam with the Burgomaster's men chasing them)

Player with Folk Hero and Background Trait "Rustic Hospitality":  As we're rounding the bend with the Burgomaster's men in hot pursuit, a trio of muddy, rain-soaked commoners usher us into their hut with a hushed "this way(!)" and we dissappear beneath a trap door that they push a table atop.

4e has lots of equivalence in Skill Challenges Skill uses (particularly Knowledge and/or Relationship abilities/skills), Streetwise broadly, and tons of various Powers.

Blades has Flashbacks.

Dungeon World has all kinds of moves like this from the Fighter class, Rogue, Bard, Barbarian, Dashing Hero (etc etc).

Lots of systems and PC build types afford some level of (exogenous - with the PC being the locus) Narrative Control (with breadth, potency, if outright fiat or resolution is involved all varying).


----------



## Campbell

What I mean by character over character concept is to not hold on to your conception of who your character is. We find that out by testing them in play. Approach your character and the fiction with a sense of genuine curiosity. Resist the impulse to control either. 

So practically this means encounters are not designed to show off one characters skill set (no spotlight balancing). It means you should change your conception of who your character is over time. You let the fiction affect that character. You do not get upset when things do not go your way. You engage in the here and now.

You play a person.


----------



## FrogReaver

Lanefan said:


> How to put this and not go on all night with it?
> 
> If I'm reading things right, we're discussing what happens in play with regards to player agency; and how either can/will/does impact the other - right?




Not sure I would phrase it that way, but seems close enough. 



> So, overriding influences e.g. social contracts, houserules, etc. can and often are felt in the immediate here-and-now of play.  An example: if my idea for a character going in was to be Evil-aligned but I find Evil PCs are not allowed at that table, that affects my play at every moment.  Or, if my idea for my character is to be a hopelessly romantic flirt and I find there's a social contract banning PC romances (or that they'll always be kept offscreen), that too will affect my play at every moment.




But you made a distinction between rules and houserules/social contracts.  If a game existed that banned Evil PCs via rules or romance via rules would you also view that as impacting player agency?



> In both cases that constant and ongoing effect on my here-and-now play will simply be that I'm not able to play the character I wanted.  I'm either playing a watered-down or amended version of the concept I first had in mind, or I'm playing something completely different because my first concept has been negated by a houserule.  Either way, my agency's taken a kick in the head - I can't play the character I originally wanted and therefore I can't affect the fiction in ways I might have otherwise.




I think that being a player implies that you are playing a game.  A game implies there are legal moves and potentially illegal moves.  A player cannot play a game without accepting the legal and illegal moves.  As such a player of a game only has agency inside the domain of the games legal moves because that is what he has accepted.  Having any agency outside those legal moves would be 'cheating'. 

I mean you could attempt to make the case that the mere existence of illegal moves in a game always constrains player agency but in that case it would apply to any such rule - even ones about genre appropriateness, about action resolution mechanics, about fairness, about the player getting to place the treasure in the Dungeon.  If we really want to say that we can but I think that essentially makes player agency a worthless concept.  What matters at that point isn't how much player agency or how little as it's neither good nor bad, it just 'is'.  What matters at that point is what specific types of moves the game makes legal and illegal.



> You're not always engaging with every rule.  Travel rules, for example, are rather irrelevant when standing in a throne room talking to a courtier.  But some rules - mostly those dealing with things like allowable character personalities, racial traits, and other 'always-on' stuff - you're engaging with at every turn. Most of the time that engagement is invisible; it's when it's not invisible that problems arise, usually to the detriment of player agency.




Having to engage with a rule at every turn is one reason to dislike such a rule.  I'm not seeing you make a clear connection from that to player agency.


----------



## FrogReaver

Manbearcat said:


> For instance, in 5e Fictional Outcome:
> 
> Player:  I attempt to jump across the gorge on horseback.
> 
> GM:  <Yes, no, roll dice>  Gamestate/fiction changes as a result.
> 
> 5e Narrative Control (PCs are in a jam with the Burgomaster's men chasing them)
> 
> Player with Folk Hero and Background Trait "Rustic Hospitality":  As we're rounding the bend with the Burgomaster's men in hot pursuit, a trio of muddy, rain-soaked commoners usher us into their hut with a hushed "this way(!)" and we dissappear beneath a trap door that they push a table atop.




So then player agency of fictional outcomes would seem to imply that the player has control of the fictional outcomes, which seems to me that would require narrative control, right?

If not perhaps an example illustrating player agency of fictional outcomes would help shed light on the difference - as all you provided above was an example of a fictional outcome determined by the GM or dice.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> If you ask me to pass you the salt, and I do, I haven't negated your agency. I've facilitated it.




No you haven't.  If I have to ask you to pass me the salt, you have full agency to say yes or no.  I am 100% reliant on your agency to get what I want.  If your choice aligns with my desires, great, but my agency means diddly unless I get up to get the salt myself or rudely lean across you and grab it. 



> If a player says (speaking for his/her PC) _I go to the shop and buy some rations _and the GM answers _OK, write them down on your equipment list _the GM has not negated the player's agency. The GM has allowed the player to decide what happens in the fiction.




Sure.  Meaning that it's the DM's agency that decided it, not the player's. 



> If the GM says, instead, _There are no ration venders around here - it's a wild and desolate place_ we now have two paths we might go down. Is this the GM taking the lead in establishing constraints of fictional positioning and genre? That's something where the players can participate in the negotiation, thus exercising their agency in reaching a consensus.




Sure.  If the players can override the DM, they have agency.  They are the ones deciding yes or no, unlike in the above examples.



> Is this the GM unilaterally exercising control over the content of the shared fiction, based on his/her prior conception of what that fiction does and doesn't look like? Then we have no player agency, as @chaochou has said. In this case it's obvious that the GM is the one who is controlloing the content of the fiction.




And this is like the salt and rations.  The DM is unilaterally exercising control over the content of the shared fiction and deciding to grant your request.



> This happens all the time in my experience: different participants make different suggestions about what might be the case in the shared fiction and we work it out. Eg in my game on Sunday the application of action resolution mechanics dictated that one PC had fallen off the boat into the water. The player of that PC then wanted to use his sword to fight the dragon that was responsible for tipping over the boat. But that can only happen if the PC still has his sword on his person!




And he has the ability to touch the bottom with a good portion of his body out of the water. 

I don't know if you've ever tried to hit someone with a noodle or something will in water that is deeper than you are tall.  You aren't very effective and that's with something light. Deep water would also inhibit the ability to swing, even if you can stand.



> In the same session the PC who is Master of the PCs' military order lost an argument with a NPC count about who would lead the charge in the next day's battle. None of the PCs - and none of their players' - was happy with this outcome. They wanted to circumvent it. I had to remind them more than once that the argument had been lost and conceded. They therefore ended up circumventing it by leading their forces out for a night-time raid on the enemy, with the goal of making it be the case that there would not be a charge the next day. This is an example of negotiation and consensus on what exactly is or isn't consistent with the established fiction.




This is curious.  It was established in the fiction via the argument with the Count that there would be a charge during the battle the next day, it just wouldn't be the PCs that lead it.  How were the players able to negate that by engaging a night time raid?  Shouldn't there have been both the night time raid AND the day battle with the charge?


----------



## Campbell

Lanefan said:


> First off, kudos for a well-thought-out post.
> I'd like to throw this in here: these two things IME are not necessarily an either-or proposition.
> 
> While you're quite right that all manner of nasty things can happen to you in a challenge-focused game, one could argue the same could (and-or should?) be true - or be able to be true - in a character-focused game.  That many systems seem not to have these options available is IMO a shortcoming.
> 
> And players can - and IME some very often do - allow what happens in the fiction to affect their characters physically and-or mentally and-or emotionally even in an otherwise challenge-based environment.  It might not be a focus of play for the whole table, or even for the system, but it is for that player playing that character; and the system doesn't forbid it.
> 
> And one hopes that in ANY system the GM is making fair impartial rulings and running the setting and its NPC inhabitants with integrity and sincerity.




The rewards systems, play expectations, GMing techniques, rules that work best and rewards systems are phenomenally different. It is possible to mix techniques, but there a like a million land mines you need to get through. Our Mork Borg (Doom Metal OSR) game does some of that, but we refer on providing cues to each other of when to focus on what. Your basically designing a new game at that point.

When it comes to players trying to play different sorts of games at the same table that is not my bag at all. I just will not do it. We sit down to play a game we are playing that game. If we want to make changes we will make changes, but this is something we do together.

An Apocalypse World GM or a Burning Wheel GM is not a neutral arbiter in the way a B/X referee is. They have agendas laid out by those games they are supposed to follow. It's an active role. Not a passive one. It's like night and day.


----------



## Lanefan

FrogReaver said:


> But you made a distinction between rules and houserules/social contracts.  If a game existed that banned Evil PCs via rules or romance via rules would you also view that as impacting player agency?



Yes if those things can exist as NPCs.

The type of setting-based constraint that says I can't play an Elf because Elves don't exist in this setting is fine: it applies equally across the board to players and GM alike.

The type of non-setting-based constraint that says I can't play an Evil Human even though Evil Humans exist in the setting is not fine.  Ditto the clearly non-setting-based constraint that says I can't roleplay a romance with another PC even though people in the setting fall in love all the time (one assumes, unless mating and reproduction are done completely without emotion).

Taking this to an extreme would suggest I should be able to play a Dragon if I wanted; I don't go that far and am quite willing to accept (and enforce!) limits on playable races or creature types.  But within those creature types, if it exists in the setting then I should be able to play one and it violates my player agency if I'm arbitrarily told I cannot.  It further violates my agency if there's certain reasonable and otherwise-generally-acceptable things e.g. romance that I'm not allowed to roleplay.

It's an extension of my increasingly-hardline stance that PCs and NPCs are and must be consistent with each other within the setting.  In other words, PCs are in all ways mechanically the same as NPCs only they've got players attached.



> I think that being a player implies that you are playing a game.  A game implies there are legal moves and potentially illegal moves.  A player cannot play a game without accepting the legal and illegal moves.  As such a player of a game only has agency inside the domain of the games legal moves because that is what he has accepted.  Having any agency outside those legal moves would be 'cheating'.



On a strictly mechanical basis, I agree. Telling the DM you rolled 16 when the die clearly says 4 is cheating.

But on a beyond-mechanical basis I think the act of imposing extra illegalities (e.g. no Evil, no romance, must play your own gender, etc.) can very quickly start nibbling if not outright chomping at agency.  Some people are cool with this.  In a few instances I'm cool with this.  But that doesn't blind me to the fact of its occurrence.



> Having to engage with a rule at every turn is one reason to dislike such a rule.  I'm not seeing you make a clear connection from that to player agency.



I was trying to - and it seems failing to in any clarity - respond to something you said about whether player agency is affected if the rule affecting it isn't relevant to the here-and-now situation; by pointing out that some agency-affecting rules are always present.  But I've now forgotten exactly what it was you said that I was responding to, or where I was trying to go with it...so...bang goes that conversation.


----------



## Lanefan

Campbell said:


> The rewards systems, play expectations, GMing techniques, rules that work best and rewards systems are phenomenally different. It is possible to mix techniques, but there a like a million land mines you need to get through.



I'm not quite so sure.

I say this after years and years of watching a few of our players in our generally-challenge-based games play their characters in a way that by your description seems closer to what those character-based games end up with: the full gamut of emotional and mental* responses to what the fiction presents them with.  It all comes from the player, mind; but the game system neither fights it nor forbids it...in fact, the system kind of ignores it, which makes things nice and simple. 

* - the system itself kind of takes care of physical responses.



> Our Mork Borg (Doom Metal OSR) game



>_raised eyebrow_< Doom Metal OSR game?  How the feldecarb does that work?

Tell me more! 



> When it comes to players trying to play different sorts of games at the same table that is not my bag at all. I just will not do it.



Taken at face value this says you'd be annoyed were someone to play an all-emotion character in a challenge-based game...which seems odd.



> We sit down to play a game we are playing that game.



The way I see it, we sit down to play a game and we're playing that game; but the game isn't (and shouldn't have to be) necessarily the same to each of us, and assuming that game is flexible enough it falls to each of us to make what we can of it and-or what we want of it.

And yes that means you might have the hard-core tactician and the full-immersion roleplayer at the same table playing the same game.  My view there is if the system in use can't at least try to handle both at once the blame lies with the system, not the players.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> Wow.
> 
> You say this:
> 
> And then you say this:
> 
> Which. Is. Exactly. What. I. Mean.
> 
> So, which is it? Do you understand? Do you not understand? Do you understand but you don't know you understand? If you're playing stupid, please stop; I know you're not stupid.



I don't understand what you mean by _the dice decide_. And what you mean by comparing it to _the GM decides_.

You seem to be asserting, or at lesat implying, that there is no differnce between _tossing a coin to see which of us has to do the dishes _and _you getting to decide every time who has to do the dishes_. But the difference between those two things is so obvious to children and parents the world over that I don't see how you could assert that they are the same.

Here's another way to come at it: when @chaochou uses the phrase _GM decides_ he means _the GM decides what happens next in the fiction_. When you use the phrase _the dice decide _you seem to mean _the dice are used to work out who gets to decide what happens next in the fiction. _How are those equivalent, given that the subject matter of the decision is different in each case?

If what you said was true, then there woudl be no difference between _resolving combat using the D&D combat resolution framework _and _having the GM decide what the outcome is and telling the players_. But I think that every RPGer has a very visceral grasp of the difference between those things.

In each case the difference is between (i) one person getting to decide what happens and (ii) using a randomiser to decided who gets to decide what happens.



prabe said:


> Agency over your _character_ is intrinsically good--it is, at least in more-traditional TRPGs like D&D, what the players can control directly, the only (or at least primary) way they have to shape the fiction.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The players have agency over their characters, and thereby over the fiction. The players' agency over the characters is approximately absolute--barring magical effects like charm spells or draconic presence, the players get to decide what the characters do; their agency over the fiction is limited to* what the characters can accomplish*.



This is not very helpful analysis. The bolded phrase is an output of action resolution and the exercise of participant agency: eg _Can this character jump this chasm?_ _Can this character kill this orc? _won't know until the action is resolved. So the phrase can't serve as an answer to questions about who has what sort of control over the fiction. 

Players in D&D exercise agency over the fiction by declaring actions for their PCs. The resulting influence on the fiction is not confined to their PCs. Eg (to borrow one of @Lanefan's examples) if the player declares _I open the door _and it is aready uncontentious that the door is unlocked, has working hinges, and is in the immediate proximity of the PC who is not in any way trapped or paralysed, then it becomes true in the fiction that the door is open.

I'm sure there are some tables which treat such action declarations merely as _suggestions to the GM to change the fiction_, but I've never played at one as best I can recall.



prabe said:


> Something being impossible doesn't negate player agency. The fact you have a player at your table who knows how tugboats operate kept that consistent with reality, but the fact that the operator couldn't (in the absurd) have the tugboat take off like a helicopter doesn't do change the options he has.



Again the analysis here is unhelpful. _Impossible _is not a self-actualising category. Someone has to make the call. Who gets to decide, at the table, that a tugboat can do this but not that? I explaind how, in the game I described, it was a player who was not the GM who did that.



prabe said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my games set in non-real worlds - eg my 4e game - the players also help decide what can or can't be done. Eg in that game it was the player of the invoker/wizard who generally took the lead in deciding what was possible to be done with magical effects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds more like authorship than agency to me.
Click to expand...


I'm not describing authorship. I'm providing an example of a non-GM participant deciding what sorts of action declaration pass the credibility test and hence can be resolved by engaging the resolution mechanics. The player isn't authoring anything in the sense of contributing new content to the fiction. S/he is helping to curat the fiction to make sure it remains coherent/consistent. I posted the example to rebut the assertion that the GM is uniquely responsible for this.

But in any event, in a game whose main activity is _collectively generating a shared fiction_, what is the contrast you are drawing between authorship and agency?


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> 5e D&D (and all D&D, I think) as written, for example, gives the DM complete control over the mechanics in terms of when they are invoked: you don't roll a check or an attack roll or anything else unless the DM tells you to.  Players can't by RAW just arbitrarily roll, unless some form of Inspiration allows it.
> 
> But the tradeoff is that the players are - or should be - very free to declare whatever actions they want.  Those actions are then fed into the DM's mechanics processor that has, at its root, four possible outcomes: auto-success, success-by-roll, fail-by-roll, or auto-fail.  On success the player gets what she wants (and has often already narrated the proposed fiction-on-success as part of the initial decoararion); on fail the DM narrates what - if anything - happens next.



As you describe this, it seems that all a player can do is make suggestions to the GM. Is that what you intend?

I don't think what you describe is the only way to play D&D. It's not even canonical for 4e D&D. If a player says, for instance, _I climb the wall_ I think the GM narrating _You are blown off by a sudden gust of wind _by fiat, without any resolution check, would be regarded as sound GMIng at many tables. No matter how realistic that might seem to the GM.



Lanefan said:


> There's inevitably going to be some action declarations that auto-succeed (I open the [known-to-be-unlocked] door) and some that auto-fail (I try to knock down the castle with a bodycheck); nothing to do with player agency but everything to do with fictional constraints and premises and consistency.



Action declarations that automatically succeed have everything to do with player agency over the fiction: they are instances of the player exercising such agency.

Action declaration that auto-fail in the sense you seem to have in mind (ie GM deciding) are cases where no agenc over the fiction is exercised by a player. But a decision - as at my table - that something isn't possible given fiction and genre will involve an exercise of player agency via collaborative negotiatoin and consensus decision-making abut what is possible. That is an exercise by all participants of agency over the content of the fiction.



Lanefan said:


> "Disallow the contest", by use of the word "disallow", strongly implies (at least to me when I read it) the rules ban the action from even being declared.  This violates player agency.
> 
> Yet you go on to say this, which shows that in your view the action _can_ be declared but the resolution mechanics can be skipped as the action has zero chance of success. This doesn't violate player agency at all.
> 
> Reading this at face value implies that any action declaration that doesn't result in a die roll is invalid, which I somehow don't think is what you mean.



I believe you've never read the HeroQuest Revised rulebook. So it would probably make more sense to ask for clarification than to tell me that I'm wrong in my interpretatin of it.

_A contest_ is a check, normally opposed but sometimes againt a fixed target number. What Laws is saying is that _if the thing the player says his/her PC does or attempts doesn't make sense_, then no such check is made.

The reason for differentiating this from the action resolution process is the one I've already stated above: that _establsihing what genre and fiction permit_ can be negotiated and the object of consensus; whereas _action resolution _is not a conesnsus-driven procedure. In each of the systems I referred to, it involves dice rolls.


----------



## S'mon

Fenris-77 said:


> 3. It is low agency, not that that's a bad thing, and you missed the descriptor 'old school', so OSR style play, which is very low agency (by design, and that's not bad). I also defined agency in no such simple way, and in fact have gone out of my way to index just how non-single source the idea is.




I don't like any definition of 'agency' by which people IRL have no 'agency'!

The OSR adventurer can attempt to do whatever he/she wants. It feels like the sort of agency we have IRL. It feels like high 'agency' to me. High character agency. Because of player-PC immersion this also translates to high player agency. 

Railroad games by contrast feel like low character agency and low player agency. 

Story-building games have high player agency; they may have low character agency if the characters are at the whim of fate, but this does not matter much as there is little or no player-PC immersion.


----------



## Campbell

OSR play (when played under a disciplined referee) has an exceptional amount of player agency over the fiction.  The referee does not get to decide what happens unbidden. They are bound by their prep, the state of the fiction, the rules of the game, any precedent set by previous rulings, and their role as a neutral arbiter. Barring Gygaxian levels of caprice that result in an extremely counter-intuitive fiction a player's use of fictional positioning is extremely effective at producing change in the fiction.


----------



## Fenris-77

I'm going to quote the post I was replying to to try and clear this up...


FrogReaver said:


> Given that we are discussing* 2 types* of player agency, the obvious question to me is not whether *summing up* the agencies results in a* greater net agency*, but whether we should be weighting one type of agency as generally more important.  I would tend to think that player agency of character actions is more important there but I'm sure others have different ideas.



See the three bolded parts? That looks an awful lot like talking about the sum possibly being greater than the total of the parts. You even used the word sum. Anyway, I don't think getting to where I got to is at all strange given your post. I wasn't accusing you of anything either, just following along and adding my own thoughts in to what you were saying. Anyway, no, no offense meant at all.



FrogReaver said:


> I disagree and more importantly I already explained why.  You are just restating the same thing here without giving one word to my objection.  For your convenience I've reposted it.
> 
> The question of "how much control do you feel you have over the story you are helping to tell" is only a meaningful indicator of a single type of player agency.  It doesn't address the other type/types



 It does, but I'm not really that interested in explaining why again. We can disagree, and it was only a general example to begin with.


FrogReaver said:


> 1.  No one here is bound by your definition of agency.  That said, I do try to address what you mean and not just the term you are using.
> 2.  If your definition of agency is not so simple, then it's very possible I missed something important from it.
> 3.  Repeating yourself that D&D is low agency isn't helpful.  My point was that there are at least 2 types of player agency and so your statement isn't entirely correct.  You could maybe address why you disagree with my point instead of repeating yourself?



Of course no one is bound by my definitions, that would be rude of me. It just helps when everyone's using the same terms or definitions because it makes it easier to keep straight what's actually on the table. You are free to use whatever definition you want, of course, I only brought that up because in a couple of spots I wasn't quite sure what bits you were talking about.  The definition I'm using is pretty much the same one that @Campbell, @Manbearcat, and to an extent @pemerton are using, if that helps any.

I have a whole detailed post upstream about how players agency isn't really one, or two, particular things. It stems from all kinds of places in the rules and table conventions. The notion of questions and answers was something I brought up to illustrate my point. Also, @Manbearcat 's post above is an excellent example.



FrogReaver said:


> Hmmmm.... let me get this straight, you are telling me I've using a wrong term which I would be willing to discuss, but then you tell me that based on the term I'm not even using that I've badly misunderstood everything.



Not a wrong term, just a different one, and one that hasn't been used elsewhere in the thread. And based on your position, not the term, I think there's a disconnect somewhere, yes. That's not a criticism, this thread has been wide ranging, and pulling all the strands together isn't simple.

It seems, from your posts, that you are primarily focused on action outcomes and adjudication as the benchmark for player agency. I'm still not quite sure what the second type is that you're referring to. Again, big thread, lotta posts. Anyway, the whole point was discussion, so please remind me and I'd be happy to engage.


FrogReaver said:


> IMO it's more likely that I'm using the term in a way that doesn't align with how you use any of your terms and that to reconcile that difference you are trying to force my use of the term to align to a different term of yours even though it doens't.  I mean it would be a lot simpler for you if I was simply using fictional as you use narrative.  That's what I believe is happening here.



Probably, yeah, see above. I'm not trying to force you to do anything either, but I am trying to figure out when we're talking about the same thing or not.



FrogReaver said:


> I don't think mine is particularly unique - others seem to understand me pretty well and a lot of vocabulary on this topic is based on what others have said.  That said, you say "fictional outcomes" very different than narrative control.  So please give me an example of a fictional outcome, or maybe even a few.  I'd like to see for myself how they actually differ.



Well, I don't know about fictional outcomes, since I'm still not 100% sure what you mean by that, but I can give you two examples, one about actions adjudication, and one not.

If your use of fictional outcomes indexes action adjudication the way I think it does, then yes, it is different from broader ideas of narrative control. Action adjudication by the DM is very much a key component here of course. A DM who has a very strict, textual approach to the rules, might often limit the outcome of actions to strict ideas about failure and success, and avoid expanding on success in any kind of narrative way. So, for example, I say I'm going to disguise myself as a old man to fool the gate guard (I'm wanted by the authorities!). One style of adjudication on a success gets you the response _ok, he thinks you're an old man, now what? _At which point the player has to make another action declaration about going through the gate, which involves another potential fail state. That GM, by requiring multiple rolls, is limiting player agency by multiplying the chance of failure. A different GM, one with a more narrative bent, might reply to the first success with _no problem, he waves you through the gate without a second glance_. Both GMs are following the rules, but with significantly different outcomes as far as agency is concerned. Don't take that simple example to seriously, it's only meant to index the propensity of a given DM to call for more or less rolls to accomplish tasks -  it's the frequency there that matters for us. That's our action adjudication example.

I'll give you a second example that isn't action adjudication, nor even really covered under the rules, but is more a part of style and table conventions. Let's call it the chandelier question. A frequent feature of many RPGs, D&D included, is that a player will ask the GM _is there X?_ , in our case it'll be the chandelier. We all know that the reason the player is asking is because they're going to swing from it if it's there. Some GMs, the one who are heavily maps and notes oriented, base their answer strictly on predetermined ideas about the space - if there's a chandelier in their notes you're good, otherwise, not so much. Even if it's not in the notes, they'll probably use their notes to help them decide if there's a chandelier or not. A different GM, one with a more fiction first approach, will base their decision on different criteria. There, unless there's a good reason that there shouldn't be a chandelier there is one, because the player asked and saying yes moves the narrative forward. This example extends to all manner of things, not just chandeliers, obviously any physical features are in play, but it also applies to NPCs and lore, just to name a couple. The first GM is running a lower agency game than the second GM. What we are really talking about here is the likelihood that player suggestions and ideas will be incorporated into the narrative. Players in the first game are far less likely to ask that kind of question because they quickly learn that they mostly wont get the answer they want. In the second game they will. Less agency, more agency. Obviously I'm using slightly exaggerated examples to highlight what is actually a range or spectrum when it comes to describing a set of individual games.



FrogReaver said:


> Point was Just that you appeared you understand the impact and importance of what was going on there and now it appears you are taking quite a different position.



I still don't see your point about this. I think it comes back to us having talked past each other for a couple of posts, IDK. I haven't changed my stance on anything though.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I don't understand what you mean by _the dice decide_. And what you mean by comparing it to _the GM decides_.




One more time.

The player states an action-intent (I want to swim across the river). THIS IS THERE THE AGENCY HAPPENS.

Resolution occurs. This can be the GM decides the outcome is not in doubt; this can be some dice-like mechanical thing (such as, rolling a die and comparing the result to a difficulty).

The result is narrated. THIS IS THERE NARRATIVE AUTHORITY APPLIES.

While in practice, the player usually narrates success and the GM usually narrates failures, that is not set in stone. What is required, though is that the results of the resolution be honored. If the GM chooses to narrate successfully swimming across the river, they need to honor the success, and not put the PC somewhere other than the other side of the river, probably close to where they were trying to go.



pemerton said:


> You seem to be asserting, or at lesat implying, that there is no differnce between _tossing a coin to see which of us has to do the dishes _and _you getting to decide every time who has to do the dishes_. But the difference between those two things is so obvious to children and parents the world over that I don't see how you could assert that they are the same.




Why are you using what I say for "The Dice Decide" and what someone else says for "The GM Decides" when it seems clear we're not talking about the same thing? That seems unhelpful.



pemerton said:


> Players in D&D exercise agency over the fiction by declaring actions for their PCs. The resulting influence on the fiction is not confined to their PCs. Eg (to borrow one of @Lanefan's examples) if the player declares _I open the door _and it is aready uncontentious that the door is unlocked, has working hinges, and is in the immediate proximity of the PC who is not in any way trapped or paralysed, then it becomes true in the fiction that the door is open.




If there's nothing that can/will stop the PC from opening the door, then the outcome of the action isn't in doubt. The fiction is changed by resolving the action.



pemerton said:


> Again the analysis here is unhelpful. _Impossible _is not a self-actualising category. Someone has to make the call. Who gets to decide, at the table, that a tugboat can do this but not that? I explaind how, in the game I described, it was a player who was not the GM who did that.




The limits on what a tugboat can do don't change the player's agency any more than walls in a dungeon do.



pemerton said:


> I'm not describing authorship. I'm providing an example of a non-GM participant deciding what sorts of action declaration pass the credibility test and hence can be resolved by engaging the resolution mechanics. The player isn't authoring anything in the sense of contributing new content to the fiction. S/he is helping to curat the fiction to make sure it remains coherent/consistent. I posted the example to rebut the assertion that the GM is uniquely responsible for this.




I could argue that "curate the fiction" come pretty close to "authorship" in a collaborative process like a TRPG.

If I asserted that the GM is uniquely responsible for keeping the game-world consistent, I hope it was in the context of saying I prefer to have final authority on the world, and that I find too much player-contribution in that regard makes it hard for me to keep the game-world consistent in my head as I'm running it--mainly because my players don't think the way I do. I hope it wasn't about that being a universal truth, because I know it's not; I've played (and run) games where it wasn't--that's how I know I prefer to run the way I do.



pemerton said:


> But in any event, in a game whose main activity is _collectively generating a shared fiction_, what is the contrast you are drawing between authorship and agency?




See my example of swimming across the river. "Agency" is deciding to swim across the river. "Authorship" is describing what you find there, and/or describing the river, and/or ...


----------



## Fenris-77

Campbell said:


> OSR play (when played under a disciplined referee) has an exceptional amount of player agency over the fiction.  The referee does not get to decide what happens unbidden. They are bound by their prep, the state of the fiction, the rules of the game, any precedent set by previous rulings, and their role as a neutral arbiter. Barring Gygaxian levels of caprice that result in an extremely counter-intuitive fiction a player's use of fictional positioning is extremely effective at producing change in the fiction.



The reliance on maps and notes to set the boundaries of the frame does mean inherently less agency than a game that instead is engaging in some flavor of playing to find out what happens. That's neither good nor bad though, just different. I will certainly agree that the discipline and goals of the DM in this style of play are _crucial_ to agency though, for sure. I think maps and notes play is where we really get to start usefully talking about railroads, which is a DM style issue. (IMO anyway)

edit - it isn't really a binary either, of course, there are a lot of stops on that bus route.


----------



## FrogReaver

serious question for all:  In d&d does a Player That’s playing a fighter PC that’s not able to teleport have a limitation put on his agency in any way due to the restriction that his PC cannot cast a teleport spell?


----------



## pemerton

FrogReaver said:


> One thing I've noticed is that there is a tendency for some to equate player agency with having no restrictions on PC action declaration.  I believe that restrictions on PC action declaration don't necessarily impact player agency of PC actions in any way.  That was one point I was bringing to light in my chess example.  Your player agency over your pieces isn't limited because you cannot move your knight as a queen.  Being constrained by the agreed upon rules of the game _(for an RPG this includes social contracts, houserules, etc)_ never constrains player agency.





Campbell said:


> When you talk about it in that way you pretty much render the concept of agency useless as a comparative analysis tool. Limitations that we accept are still limitations. The whole point is to be able to meaningfully talk about what is actually going on in any moment of play.



I want to offer a slightly different perspective here from Campbell's.

First, a bit more about chess. When we play chess no one unilaterally sets the rules. The rules reflect a consensus among the participants, an agreement to play according to a common framework for what is permissible and what is forbidden.  No particular participant has the power to decide, unilaterally and at each and every moment of play, what is legal and what is not. There is therefore, from the start, no useful analogy to _GM decides _as an approach to action resolution in RPGing.

Second, a bit of a tour through some possible decision procedures that might be used if a group of us get together to see a film. This is a more useful analogy because, ike RPGing, it involves a group making a decision about a collective endeavour.

Maybe we all want to see the same film: in which case, as soon as that information comes to light, unless something has gone badly wrong in our discussion, we all go and see that one.

Maybe we discuss it, thrash it out, and arrive at a consensus. Among good friends this can work well. Sometimes it leads to bullying, dominant personalities getting their way a lot, etc. When it works well everyone gets to exercise their agency through the negotiation process.

Maybe we identify our different preference rankings, and we make a list of all the top two or three films and toss a coin or roll a die. This procedure means that not everyone gets what they most wanted; but everyone has a say (in setting up the list) and everyone had a chance.

Maybe we draw lots and whoever wins gets to decide this time. Next time we'll draw lots but last time's winner will be excluded - ie a system of randomised rotation. This procedure does not involve any sort of negotiation or consensus, but rotates decision-making power.

Maybe the most bossy or popular or loved person in the group decides, and we all go along with him/her.

That last one clearly does not distribute decision-making agency among the group, either on this one occasion or over multiple occasions of going out together. The fact that soeone chooses to go along with it - because they love the leader, or are scared of the leader, or think the leader has excellent taste in films, doesn't affect this basic feature of the decsion-making procedure. This is a procedure in which one person has the agency and the others go along with it. (A more formal version of this is a film club or similar: the organisers/convenors set the program, and the other members go along and view whatever is being presented that night. Their reaason might be friendship with the convenors, or a desire to support the club, or trust that the convenors will run a good season. They're not exercising agency in respect of which films are viewed at club events.)

We can see analogues of all these approaches in RPG decision-making. The first is what happens when the GM "says 'yes'". There is no difference of opinion and everyone gets what they want.

The second is pretty common, at least in my experience, for establishing genre constraints, and resolving disagreements or uncertainty about fictional positioning. The GM often plays a leading or "chairperson" role which can be more formalised than among a group of friends going out to a film.

The coin toss across preference rankings has its analogy in the use of randomisation to settle action resolution.

Rotation of who gets to choose is probably a bit less common in RPGing, but might be seen in some games that rotate scene-framing responsibilities and maybe is also one way of understanding some approaches to "spotlight balance".

Decision-making on an ongoing basis by the one dominant personality looks like what we see in a consistent application of "GM decides". As I said, it's obvious that this does not involve any sort of sharing of agency. Just as in the film case, other participants might have good reason to not exercise their agency and to go along with the GM. That doesn't change the fact that that's what they're doing.


----------



## hawkeyefan

FrogReaver said:


> serious question for all:  In d&d does a Player That’s playing a fighter PC that’s not able to teleport have a limitation put on his agency in any way due to the restriction that his PC cannot cast a teleport spell?




I would say so. His ability to move about is limited to his speed based on race/class/feats/etc. without access to spells that would increase his ability to move. If he had the teleport spell/ability at his disposal, his movement range would be far more broad, and could impact the fiction in more ways. It becomes easier to bypass obstacles and to escape enemies or other threats, and so on.

Now, having said that, lesser agency in this instance is not a bad thing. It's simply part of the game mechanics and the choices that each player must make about how they want their character to interact with the world.


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> So a fundamental conceit important to my understanding of role playing games (related to agency) is that the fiction is shared. Once anyone introduces something to the fiction it no longer belongs to just them.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In a more character focused environment the expectation is that everyone is playing their characters with integrity - letting what happens in the fiction affect  their characters physically, mentally, and emotionally. This includes the GM. They must play the world with integrity. No gets to hold on to their conceptions of things. No character concepts - only characters.



This made me reflect on some of my experiences as player and GM.

I don't play (as opposed to GM) very often, but I thought about my holy warrior in Burning Wheel who (as a result of a GM narration) discovered old letters in the abandoned tower of Evard (an evil sorcerer) that implied that my mother (an important relationsip called out on my PC sheet) was Evard's daughter - making him my grandfather. That was very challenging. I (which is to say my PC) burned them in the campfire (my character has an instinct _When camping, always ensure that the campfire is burning_).

As a GM my NPCs are not always that deep. By default they are foils for the PC's actions. So whereas it is easy for me to point to changes in my gameworld that refect what has happened in play, I would say that NPCs are not always at the forefront of that. But I can think of examples. In my 4e game the one I rememer best is the Baron of Threshold, who went from being unsure of the PCs, to their ally and supporter, to a broken man after they revealed his niece to be a necromancer and killed her. In our Prince Valiant game a lot of the NPC changes are drawn in rather broad strokes - eg Saxons and Huns who convert and join the PCs' order - but there have been more nuanced examples, including some of the romantic relationships.

A challenge in RPGing (at least for me) is bringing out the inner lives of characters, which can be demanding and generate a degree of self-consciousness when we're talking about low-key fiction among amateur authors/performers.



Campbell said:


> I think in many ways agency over the shared fiction and agency over the content we create are opposing forces. Assuming equitable relationships and not naughty word ones (where I can affect your stuff and you cannot affect mine) the more agency we have over our stuff the less everyone else has over it. Agency then becomes this elaborate maze of *walled of gardens* where we must carefully negotiate the ones in which we can effect each others stuff.



This was interesting. I guess there are always _opposing forces _in the most basic sense that we can't all get what we want when we want different things.

I think the structure of action declaration and resolution - both formal and informal - plays a big role here. Eg in a system like Burning Wheel it is made overt that the GM doesn't just have the job of _deciding what s/he would like to happen_. The GM has to decide _if things go wrong for this character, what will that look like? _So the game's procedures and structure force us to confront these opposing visions of how the fiction will unfold, and then dice to see which one prevails.

I tend to run other systems in a similar way to this - to the extent that they permit - but few are as demanding as BW. But thinking, say, about Classic Traveller: it doesn't involve _character _in anything like the way that BW or even Prince Valilant does, but it still forces the GM to make those sorts of decisions. Eg if a player has his/her PC attempt any non-basic manoeuvre while wearing a vacc suit the rules call for a check, and if it fails the GM has to narrate the threatening situation that has arisen. And when a player has his/her PC talk to a NPC, the reaction dice have to be rolled (at our table the player rolls this like a check in D&D) and if the roll is poor the GM has to narrate the way in which the NPC is opposed to or hostile to the PC.

And if it goes the other way - the player makes the vacc suit check or rolls a good reaction check or whatever - the GM has to honour that. The PC is not in danger from suit tearing or deoxygentation or whatever. The NPC takes a shine to the PC and will help him/her. Etc.

I think _walled off gardens_ would make RPGing very hard. I don't quite see how anything would really happen in the game.


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> This is curious.  It was established in the fiction via the argument with the Count that there would be a charge during the battle the next day, it just wouldn't be the PCs that lead it.  How were the players able to negate that by engaging a night time raid?  Shouldn't there have been both the night time raid AND the day battle with the charge?



The successful night time raid rendered the plans for a battle the next day irrelevant. The enemy was defeated and dispersed, and the enemy captain taken prisoner.


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> An Apocalypse World GM or a Burning Wheel GM is not a neutral arbiter in the way a B/X referee is. They have agendas laid out by those games they are supposed to follow. It's an active role. Not a passive one. It's like night and day.



So much this! It's why I'm a bad OSR-type referee.

In my Prince Valiant game, the PCs found themselves defending a castle in Bordeaux that they had taken with the help of a peasant uprising. The Count of Toulouse arrived leading a force coming to try and relieve the castle. Ahead of him was riding his beautiful and unhappy wife, hoping to use this chance to escape from her marriage. As written up in the scenario I was adapting, she had a special ability to incite affection in one person.

In classic D&D this would be analagous to a dryad's charm ability. That essentially creates a challenge - of potentially robbing the party of one of its members, perhaps even pitting that member against the others - and because a dryad is not evil it can oblige the players to try and resolve the challenge without an excess of violence.

In Prince Valiant the context is entirely different. One of the PCs was in a marriage that he didn't really want to be in - he had been talked into it by his wife and her father - and so naturally I fastened on him as the one in whom affection was incited. It's not a challenge to be dealt with - its me poking and prodding at the player and his character, and because Prince Valiant is at its core pretty light-hearted it produces some rom-com style hijinks - occasinally rising to the level of melodrama - involving this PC, his wife, and the "other woman". What makes it amusing and interesting as a component of play is that it's _not neutral_. It's targetted, deliberate and provocative.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> I would say so. His ability to move about is limited to his speed based on race/class/feats/etc. without access to spells that would increase his ability to move. If he had the teleport spell/ability at his disposal, his movement range would be far more broad, and could impact the fiction in more ways. It becomes easier to bypass obstacles and to escape enemies or other threats, and so on.
> 
> Now, having said that, lesser agency in this instance is not a bad thing. It's simply part of the game mechanics and the choices that each player must make about how they want their character to interact with the world.




That seems to imply that a player in a dungeon-based campaign has less agency than one in a wilderness or urban campaign. It also seems to imply that a player with a faster character has more agency than one with a slower one. I would be inclined to disagree (though it's clear I look at agency very differently from you). If the only difference is movement, the players definitely don't have different agency over their characters; they might (depending on game and mechanics and whatnot) have less agency over the larger fiction, because there might be less they can accomplish, but I don't see that as set in stone.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> The player states an action-intent (I want to swim across the river). THIS IS THERE THE AGENCY HAPPENS.



This is not the definition of _player agency _that @chaochou (who introduced the phrase into this thread) was using. And because I have been essentially following up on chaochou's posts, it's not the definition I've been using either.

Yes, in more-or-less traditional RPGs players play the game by declaring actions for their PCs. I don't think that's controversial. But precisely because it's a ubiquitous feature of most RPGs it doesn't tell us much about ways in which they might differ.

What @chaohou and I have been talking about is something in respect of which RPGs do differ, namely, the capacity of a player to exercise control over the content of the shared fiction. Probably the most important way this control manifests is by _chaning _or _authoring _the shared fiction. It can also consist in curating it eg by helping establish what the genre limitations might be on changes.

So to determine whether _I want to swim across the river_ actually involves or leads to an exercise of player agency in the sense that chaochou and I have used that phrase, it's not enough to note that _it is legal for the player to say that thing as part of the gameplay_. We need to look at how the player saying that thing then feeds into the process of establishing, maintaing, changing, etc the content of the shared fiction.



prabe said:


> Resolution occurs. This can be the GM decides the outcome is not in doubt; this can be some dice-like mechanical thing (such as, rolling a die and comparing the result to a difficulty).
> 
> The result is narrated. THIS IS THERE NARRATIVE AUTHORITY APPLIES.



This is not the way that most games I play unfold. Which is a point I've made upthread. The approach that you set out here tends to reduce player agency in ways that I dislike.

For me, the canonical procedure is:

(1) _Is this a permissible action declaration?_ If there is no river (eg it's an illusion) or if the PC is bound and gagged or if the PC is a 1st level PC and the River is the Styx or for any other sort of reason, then it may be that _the action is not permissible_. Someone needs to decide this: if the fiction is not curated in this way it can lead to inanity or incoherence.

When I GM I treat this as a matter of table conensus with the GM taking the lead - something like a chairing role. I prefer this approach to an approach of unilateral GM authority and curation because the latter reduces the agency the players enjoy over the shared fiction.

(2) _If the action declaration is permissible_, _determine whether a mechanical process is required or whether it just succeeds_. In some systems, a mechanical process is required independently of the opinions of anyone at the table (eg Classic Traveller always requires certain checks to be made when a starship makes an interstellar jump; Apocalypse World has the notion that _if you do it, then you do it _- ie if a character in the fiction does a certain sort of thing, then the corresponding mechanical "move" has to be resolved). In some systems, if no one at the table cares about whether the action succeeds or fails, then it succeeds and play moves on. This is what Vincent Baker and Luke Crane call "say 'yes' or roll the dice". @Manbearcat posted an interesting example not far upthread of a _player _being the one who didn't "say 'yes'" to another player's actions (attempting to kill some winter fey) and hence mechanics being invoked to see which PC got to prevail in that particular situation.

(3) _If a mechanical procedure has been invoked, apply that procedure_. This will generally tell us whose job it is to say what happens next, and in most reasonably traditional systems will set some constraints on what that is. These might be rather narrow - eg in Classic Traveller if a physical stat is reduced to zero as a result of combat resolution then the character in question is unconcsious in the fiction - or they might be broader - eg in Prince Valiant if Brawn or Presence is reduced to zero the character in question has lost the conflict but the GM is permitted to narrate this in a wide variety of ways, from swooning, or being tossed into the moat, to being dead, as seems appropriate given considerations of established fiction, verisimilitude, pacing, drama, etc. Generally if the player succeeds in the mechanical process a good chunk of what s/he was hoping for becomes true in the fiction, but not necessarily all of it; eg AW often allows "success with a cost/twist"; in Burning Wheel a Duel of Wits can be won but with a compromise required; etc.

Step (3) is where "the dice decide". I think it is obvious that the way in which player agency operates here is quite different from "the GM decides". I've alread spelled this out in some detail upthread and so don't think I need to repeat it here.



prabe said:


> If there's nothing that can/will stop the PC from opening the door, then the outcome of the action isn't in doubt
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The limits on what a tugboat can do don't change the player's agency any more than walls in a dungeon do.



The first half of the first quoted sentence, and thhe whole of the second quoted sentence, are framed as if the fiction is self-actualising or exercises causal power. But it's not and it doesn't.

How is it established, in the shared fiction, that _there's nothing that can/will stop the PC from opening the door _or that _a tugboat can't do that_ or that _there are these walls in this dungeon _or even that (to go back to the OP) _this NPC will call the guards on you if you insult him_? Until we know the answers to these questions, we don't know much about how player agency is exercised in the RPG.

I've given some answers to those questions, that are analytical accoounts of my own approach to play, in this and my previous posts. (In this post, see my steps (1) and (2) above). And I've explained how these differ from simple _GM decides _and how that difference creates room for player agency that _GM decides_ would tend to exclude.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> I would say so. His ability to move about is limited to his speed based on race/class/feats/etc. without access to spells that would increase his ability to move. If he had the teleport spell/ability at his disposal, his movement range would be far more broad, and could impact the fiction in more ways. It becomes easier to bypass obstacles and to escape enemies or other threats, and so on.





prabe said:


> That seems to imply that a player in a dungeon-based campaign has less agency than one in a wilderness or urban campaign. It also seems to imply that a player with a faster character has more agency than one with a slower one. I would be inclined to disagree (though it's clear I look at agency very differently from you). If the only difference is movement, the players definitely don't have different agency over their characters; they might (depending on game and mechanics and whatnot) have less agency over the larger fiction, because there might be less they can accomplish, but I don't see that as set in stone.



Suppose that the canvassed implication was really there: that wouldn't mean that hawkeyefan is wrong. It would tell us something about the constraints that arise from different setting conceits and associated mechanical procedures.

It seems obvious that, in a D&D-type game a player whose character was unable to move (paralysed; speed 0; whatever other reason) and who had no magic to compensate would not be able to impact the fiction much at all, and so it's not counterintuitive that - in such a system - higher movement rate is one mechanical device for increasing player agency in certain respects. (To put it another way: in D&D, movement rates and distance are not mere colour. Contrast Prince Valiant, where there is fictional positioning but nothing like a D&D movement resolution system.)

I've read some GMing advice that suggests _start with a small constrained setting to make it easier to anticipate and adjudicate player actions_. That advice seems to rest on a premise that a small constrained setting will reduce player agency over the fiction and hence make the GM's job easier.

But in fact - and here I'd be curious if @Campbell agrees - in the history of actual D&D play we tend to see that the growth of less dungeon-focused and more "living breathing world-focused play has _reduced _player agency. This is because GM discipine tends to reduce with the growth in the scope of the setting, and so an ability like teleportation that seems as if it could be agency-enhancing in fact becomes a device just for triggering new narration from the GM (_When you arrive here's what you see . . ._).

TL;DR: You can't just look at a mechanical element, or at a bit of fictional content, and work out whether and how it affects player agency. You've got to look at the whole procedure of play of which it is a part.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> That seems to imply that a player in a dungeon-based campaign has less agency than one in a wilderness or urban campaign. It also seems to imply that a player with a faster character has more agency than one with a slower one.




For the dungeon based game versus wilderness based game, I don't know if that's always applicable. I mean, my games tend to contain both those elements and more....so I don't know if defining them as such at the campaign level is all that useful. But, I tend to think that generally speaking, characters being in a wilderness environment are not as constrained as those in a dungeon, right? I mean....that's the key difference, I would think. You can only move according to the boundaries and properties of the dungeon, which tend to be far more restrictive than ones in the wild. Generally speaking, of course....someone can no doubt come up with some example that runs counter to this.

But I don't know if this dungeon versus wilderness angle is all that meaningful. I mean, the context of each area as established by the fiction and events in the game so far may place far more importance on what happens in the dungeon.....so perhaps the agency found there by the players is far more important and meaningful in how the fiction unfolds. So I think there is more to it than simple geography, although that can be a part of it.

As a basic example, my PCs in my 5E game played through Tomb of Annihilation. In the Tomb, they could eventually face and defeat Acererak, and thereby shape many significant events for the future of the campaign. At any point in the trek through the jungle to get to the Tomb, they could not exercise any actions that had such meaningful implications for the game. Sure, they could use magic to fly 50 feet into the air and they could see for miles in some areas.....but does this mean that the agency they had in the wild is greater than that they had in the dungeon? The players were free to declare more of a variety of actions for their characters, but any such instance did not have as significant an impact on the fiction. Again, there will be exceptions, but I think my point is clear.

As to movement speed, I don't think it's fast/slow that matters. It's the options available. Can the fighter traverse the 200 foot chasm? Can the wizard with teleport memorized? Who has more options to bring about the outcome? If the characters find themselves in over their heads, the fighter's ability to retreat is limited to his movement (barring assistance from others, or the appropriate magic item, etc.). The wizard can run just as fast, most likely, or very close to it, and also has Fly, Spiderclimb, and Teleport memorized.

I think it's very clear that the wizard has more agency in those instances. He simply has more options at his disposal, and those options have different ways that they interact with the fiction.




prabe said:


> I would be inclined to disagree (though it's clear I look at agency very differently from you). If the only difference is movement, the players definitely don't have different agency over their characters; they might (depending on game and mechanics and whatnot) have less agency over the larger fiction, because there might be less they can accomplish, but I don't see that as set in stone.





I don't think that the ability to control the actions I declare for my character is really all that meaningful an example of agency unless it is also coupled with some chance that these actions I declare actually can impact the fiction. As others have pointed out, players declaring actions for their characters is present in all RPGs except for perhaps a few fringe exceptions. So we have to go beyond the declaration itself, and look at what that declaration can accomplish in the fiction.

I think that many are looking at player agency as "I am able to declare all actions for my characters, and no one else can do so, barring certain specific instances" and I think that's only a very small part of it. I do think that a player controlling their character, and not being restricted in how they do so is generally a good thing.....I just don't think it constitutes a meaningful definition of player agency for the context of this conversation.

If I am simply able to say "My character tries this" and it happens, then I have agency. If I am able to say "My character tries this" and we use dice to determine success, then I have agency. If I say "My character tries this" and the GM has to determine if it's possible.....here's where it gets tricky. I may still have agency because my desire may come about in the fiction (ME: "I want to kick in the door"--->GM (decides by fiat): "The door goes flying off its hinges"; in this way the GM has facilitated my agency, as @pemerton mentioned earlier). But if the GM unilaterally decides to block my action, then it's a restriction on my agency (ME: "I want to kick in the door" ---> GM (decides by fiat): "You try your hardest, but the door simply will not budge").

Of those three admittedly basic processes for the game.....1) action simply happens, 2) we use dice to determine outcome, or 3) GM decides yea or nay......only one of them can result in 0% agency. Not that it always does or even mostly does.....but only one of them has it as a possibility. *Would you agree with this? *

If so, then a player declaring actions for his character does not display agency in and of itself.....because the GM can deny every single action. Again, this is why we have to go beyond simply the declaration. We have to look at the effect that these declarations have on the fiction. *Can that player shape events meaningfully through the actions that he or she declares? *

I think what's happening in this conversation a lot is that people are looking at it as "agency is good" and "My game is not bad" so "My game must have agency". And I think this is leading to some real contortions and justifications to prove that agency is present. I am not saying this is true of you, but I think that it accounts for the fact that there are different definitions of agency being used in the discussion.

If we take away the idea that "agency is always good" and then just start to look at it as a thing that exists or does not.....that there are good instances of agency being removed, and there are bad instances of agency being present.....then we have a clearer view.

In D&D, every choice I make for my character potentially grants agency in some ways, and may cost me agency in others. This can apply to chocie of race, class, background, subclass, spell loadout, feats, and gear, among other things. If I choose to play a fighter, I am willingly accepting stronger limits on my ability to have my character move in ways other than those that are available to all characters. I am accepting that I will not cast spells (barring choice of a subclass that allows it, or multiclassing or similar) nor will I likely have an animal companion and so on.

None of these are bad....because I want to play a fighter. As such, I accept that my character's ability to teleport will be nil.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> I don't think that the ability to control the actions I declare for my character is really all that meaningful an example of agency unless it is also coupled with some chance that these actions I declare actually can impact the fiction. As others have pointed out, players declaring actions for their characters is present in all RPGs except for perhaps a few fringe exceptions. So we have to go beyond the declaration itself, and look at what that declaration can accomplish in the fiction.
> 
> I think that many are looking at player agency as "I am able to declare all actions for my characters, and no one else can do so, barring certain specific instances" and I think that's only a very small part of it. I do think that a player controlling their character, and not being restricted in how they do so is generally a good thing.....I just don't think it constitutes a meaningful definition of player agency for the context of this conversation.
> 
> <sniop>
> 
> we have to go beyond simply the declaration. We have to look at the effect that these declarations have on the fiction. *Can that player shape events meaningfully through the actions that he or she declares?*



All this.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> This is not the definition of _player agency _that @chaochou (who introduced the phrase into this thread) was using. And because I have been essentially following up on chaochou's posts, it's not the definition I've been using either.
> 
> So to determine whether _I want to swim across the river_ actually involves or leads to an exercise of player agency in the sense that chaochou and I have used that phrase, it's not enough to note that _it is legal for the player to say that thing as part of the gameplay_. We need to look at how the player saying that thing then feeds into the process of establishing, maintaing, changing, etc the content of the shared fiction.




I believe I have located at least one locus of the failure to communicate, here. Player agency (as I've been trying to use it consistently) is about the players making decisions for or through their characters, which choices alter the fictional state. So player agency isn't involved in the action of swimming across the river so much as in the decision to do so. If the fictional state doesn't change--if the encounters are the same whether or not the river is swum, if the same results attain--then there's no player agency involved, even if the action (swimming across the river) is resolved. When I say "THIS IS WHERE THE AGENCY HAPPENS" I mean in the decision to swim across the river, not as much in the declaration of the action.

I know I use the term differently than you; I'm hoping that you can see what I mean, and why I see things like "The DM Decides" (as a method of action resolution) as I do--as not impinging on player agency *as I use the term.*



pemerton said:


> For me, the canonical procedure is:
> 
> {snip}




I don't see any deep fundamental difference between the procedure you describe and the one I describe, if you leave out any assertions about where player agency comes into play. You share some of the curation/decision-making around the table, which almost certainly works at your table, for the games you play, the way you run them. Because I have in the past had a hard time with coherence when I did that, I don't. It's a preference, and I am not convinced your approach is objectively wrong--just wrong for me.

I said:



> If there's nothing that can/will stop the PC from opening the door, then the outcome of the action isn't in doubt
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The limits on what a tugboat can do don't change the player's agency any more than walls in a dungeon do.






pemerton said:


> The first half of the first quoted sentence, and thhe whole of the second quoted sentence, are framed as if the fiction is self-actualising or exercises causal power. But it's not and it doesn't.




This may be another locus of our failure to communicate, here. I believe that fiction emerges from play; that may sound to you as though I believe it to be self-actualizing (sorry for the American spelling, there). I do believe that established facts in the fiction do exert causal power--I suspect that you do, too.



pemerton said:


> How is it established, in the shared fiction, that _there's nothing that can/will stop the PC from opening the door _or that _a tugboat can't do that_ or that _there are these walls in this dungeon _or even that (to go back to the OP) _this NPC will call the guards on you if you insult him_? Until we know the answers to these questions, we don't know much about how player agency is exercised in the RPG.




That depends. In the instance of tugboats we have concensus reality to fall back on--the real-world capabilities of tugboats are easily researched, though converting those to game mechanics may take some work. In the instance of setting-elements in a game world, we have published materials if we're running those; we have the GM's notes if it's a homebrew adventure; we have common sense (or an unreasonable facsimile thereof) if something is not covered in the notes or published material--the GM exercises judgment (possibly in consultation with the table, the way you describe your tables at least sometimes operating, which I'll say again isn't something I'm trying to argue against).

Any of those would seem as though they'd be part of the fictional state. If player agency (in either the definition you've been using or in mine, I think) is about changing the fictional state, it must be defined before it can be change; that's what notes and prep and GM judgment (and real-world knowledge) are for. Without a fictional state to change, there is nothing to choose, there is nothing to change, and there can be no player agency.


----------



## prabe

This is a good post. I'm snipping my way through it because there are specific things I want to respond to. It doesn't feel as though I'm arguing with them now--we'll see how they turn out.



hawkeyefan said:


> I think it's very clear that the wizard has more agency in those instances. He simply has more options at his disposal, and those options have different ways that they interact with the fiction.




The wizard certainly has more options. That probably means he has more (or different) opportunities to exert agency (if that's the right verb, there).



hawkeyefan said:


> I think that many are looking at player agency as "I am able to declare all actions for my characters, and no one else can do so, barring certain specific instances" and I think that's only a very small part of it. I do think that a player controlling their character, and not being restricted in how they do so is generally a good thing.....I just don't think it constitutes a meaningful definition of player agency for the context of this conversation.




I think being able to change the fictional state is what matters. Obviously, not being able to control your character means you can't change the fictional state. Having your character's actions not matter means that, too, I think.



hawkeyefan said:


> If I am simply able to say "My character tries this" and it happens, then I have agency. If I am able to say "My character tries this" and we use dice to determine success, then I have agency. If I say "My character tries this" and the GM has to determine if it's possible.....here's where it gets tricky. I may still have agency because my desire may come about in the fiction (ME: "I want to kick in the door"--->GM (decides by fiat): "The door goes flying off its hinges"; in this way the GM has facilitated my agency, as @pemerton mentioned earlier). But if the GM unilaterally decides to block my action, then it's a restriction on my agency (ME: "I want to kick in the door" ---> GM (decides by fiat): "You try your hardest, but the door simply will not budge").
> 
> Of those three admittedly basic processes for the game.....1) action simply happens, 2) we use dice to determine outcome, or 3) GM decides yea or nay......only one of them can result in 0% agency. Not that it always does or even mostly does.....but only one of them has it as a possibility. *Would you agree with this? *




In the sense that the door can open, I agree. In the sense that opening the door matters ... not so much. If the next encounter is [THING], whether you kick open the door or go down the hall, I don't think you really have agency.



hawkeyefan said:


> If so, then a player declaring actions for his character does not display agency in and of itself.....because the GM can deny every single action. Again, this is why we have to go beyond simply the declaration. We have to look at the effect that these declarations have on the fiction. *Can that player shape events meaningfully through the actions that he or she declares? *




This is what I mean when I talk about it needs to matter if you open the door (or cross the river, or whatever). If the next thing happens wherever you are, whatever you do, you might not have as much agency as you think you do.



hawkeyefan said:


> In D&D, every choice I make for my character potentially grants agency in some ways, and may cost me agency in others. This can apply to chocie of race, class, background, subclass, spell loadout, feats, and gear, among other things. If I choose to play a fighter, I am willingly accepting stronger limits on my ability to have my character move in ways other than those that are available to all characters. I am accepting that I will not cast spells (barring choice of a subclass that allows it, or multiclassing or similar) nor will I likely have an animal companion and so on.
> 
> None of these are bad....because I want to play a fighter. As such, I accept that my character's ability to teleport will be nil.




Agreed.


----------



## Lanefan

Fenris-77 said:


> Well, I don't know about fictional outcomes, since I'm still not 100% sure what you mean by that, but I can give you two examples, one about actions adjudication, and one not.
> 
> If your use of fictional outcomes indexes action adjudication the way I think it does, then yes, it is different from broader ideas of narrative control. Action adjudication by the DM is very much a key component here of course. A DM who has a very strict, textual approach to the rules, might often limit the outcome of actions to strict ideas about failure and success, and avoid expanding on success in any kind of narrative way. So, for example, I say I'm going to disguise myself as a old man to fool the gate guard (I'm wanted by the authorities!). One style of adjudication on a success gets you the response _ok, he thinks you're an old man, now what? _At which point the player has to make another action declaration about going through the gate, which involves another potential fail state. That GM, by requiring multiple rolls, is limiting player agency by multiplying the chance of failure. A different GM, one with a more narrative bent, might reply to the first success with _no problem, he waves you through the gate without a second glance_. Both GMs are following the rules, but with significantly different outcomes as far as agency is concerned. Don't take that simple example to seriously, it's only meant to index the propensity of a given DM to call for more or less rolls to accomplish tasks -  it's the frequency there that matters for us. That's our action adjudication example.



I'm not sure about this one at all.

You're conflating level of player agency - the ability to declare actions and play the character as intended - with level of challenge being posed by the GM.  They're not the same thing.

In your above example the player's agency in each case is exactly the same.  The second GM, however, is simply making things more challenging for the PC/player than is the first; and is not automatically assuming the disguise succeeds in its intended task but is instead putting that disguise to a further test. Either way is fine, I suppose, though my preference leans toward the added-challenge side: an easy game is not a fun game.



> I'll give you a second example that isn't action adjudication, nor even really covered under the rules, but is more a part of style and table conventions. Let's call it the chandelier question. A frequent feature of many RPGs, D&D included, is that a player will ask the GM _is there X?_ , in our case it'll be the chandelier. We all know that the reason the player is asking is because they're going to swing from it if it's there. Some GMs, the one who are heavily maps and notes oriented, base their answer strictly on predetermined ideas about the space - if there's a chandelier in their notes you're good, otherwise, not so much. Even if it's not in the notes, they'll probably use their notes to help them decide if there's a chandelier or not. A different GM, one with a more fiction first approach, will base their decision on different criteria. There, unless there's a good reason that there shouldn't be a chandelier there is one, because the player asked and saying yes moves the narrative forward. This example extends to all manner of things, not just chandeliers, obviously any physical features are in play, but it also applies to NPCs and lore, just to name a couple. The first GM is running a lower agency game than the second GM. What we are really talking about here is the likelihood that player suggestions and ideas will be incorporated into the narrative. Players in the first game are far less likely to ask that kind of question because they quickly learn that they mostly wont get the answer they want. In the second game they will. Less agency, more agency.



Here we're on to an entirely different question: whether or not players can add or modify setting elements.

Players adding or changing static setting elements, i.e. things they've yet to have their PCs interact with, falls outside my definition of player agency (control of the character) and gets into a much messier question of who actually controls the setting and its elements.

I say this control resides - and almost completely must reside - with the GM, if only because simple human nature is going to trend players towards adding or modifying setting elements to the advantage of their PCs most of the time in attempts to reduce or overcome challenges.  In theory the GM is a neutral arbiter, and while on being asked if there's a chandelier* she's well within her purview to say "Sure, it's over the central table." or wherever she should by no means feel obligated to put one in just because a player asked about it.

* - one might ask, if there's a chandelier there that's big enough to swing from, why it wasn't already mentioned in the room description...


----------



## Lanefan

FrogReaver said:


> serious question for all:  In d&d does a Player That’s playing a fighter PC that’s not able to teleport have a limitation put on his agency in any way due to the restriction that his PC cannot cast a teleport spell?



No, for several reasons:

--- the overarching rules of the game (meta-level) tell us that single-class Fighters cannot cast arcane spells
--- the internal rules of the fiction as presented also tell us that single-class Fighters cannot cast arcane spells
--- NPC Fighters and PC Fighters operate under the same restriction.

Were any of the above not true then there either might be or would be a limitation being imposed, depending on the situation.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> First, a bit more about chess. When we play chess no one unilaterally sets the rules. The rules reflect a consensus among the participants, an agreement to play according to a common framework for what is permissible and what is forbidden.  No particular participant has the power to decide, unilaterally and at each and every moment of play, what is legal and what is not. There is therefore, from the start, no useful analogy to _GM decides _as an approach to action resolution in RPGing.



However, there's one really big difference between chess and most RPGs: the rules of chess were long ago set by people not currently sitting down to play, and are pretty much cast in stone; where the rules of most RPGs are somewhat malleable and can be (and frequently are) changed by those who engage in playing them.

Further, when RPG rules are changed probably 99+% of the time that change is being done by the GM.  Add that to a rulings-not-rules backdrop as has frequently been the either stated or unstated (or even unintended!) case over the years and yes, in many ways a GM does have the power to unilaterally decide what's legal and what's not.

Oftentimes it's how a GM uses that power that determines whether that GM is good, bad or average at the trade.


----------



## prabe

Lanefan said:


> I say this control resides - and almost completely must reside - with the GM, if only because simple human nature is going to trend players towards adding or modifying setting elements to the advantage of their PCs most of the time in attempts to reduce or overcome challenges.  In theory the GM is a neutral arbiter, and while on being asked if there's a chandelier* she's well within her purview to say "Sure, it's over the central table." or wherever she should by no means feel obligated to put one in just because a player asked about it.




I don't disagree that D&D (and games closely akin to it) works better when the GM have primary control over what's in the setting or the scene, but games that have rules for the players to edit scenes can work, and if a GM specifically asks a player what's in a scene it almost always does work--especially if there's player expertise coming into play (such as someone who's worked at a nuclear reactor describing a powerplant control room).


----------



## Lanefan

prabe said:


> I don't disagree that D&D (and games closely akin to it) works better when the GM have primary control over what's in the setting or the scene, but games that have rules for the players to edit scenes can work, and if a GM specifically asks a player what's in a scene it almost always does work--especially if there's player expertise coming into play (such as someone who's worked at a nuclear reactor describing a powerplant control room).



My GM often asks me what's what if-when anything maritime comes up - I grew up around boats and he doesn't really know a boat from a beachball - but he still retains full right of veto (rarely if ever exercised, but it's there nonetheless) if what I tell him doesn't mesh with what he's thinking.

The risk of allowing players to edit scenes are twofold.  One you've already hit on yourself, that being a hard-to-manage increase in setting inconsistencies as things go along. The other is the risk of players editing scenes specifically in order to unduly benefit either their own PCs or the party as a whole; maybe not all the time (though I've known some who would) but at key pivotal moments, simply as an extension of the players' duty to advocate for their characters.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> This is a good post. I'm snipping my way through it because there are specific things I want to respond to. It doesn't feel as though I'm arguing with them now--we'll see how they turn out.
> 
> The wizard certainly has more options. That probably means he has more (or different) opportunities to exert agency (if that's the right verb, there).




That's probably a good way to phrase it. I would think that it's fairly safe to say, at least for the purposes of this conversation, that greater ability to exert agency or more opportunities to exert agency means that person has more agency in the game.



prabe said:


> I think being able to change the fictional state is what matters. Obviously, not being able to control your character means you can't change the fictional state. Having your character's actions not matter means that, too, I think.




Well, yes, if a character is subject to some effect that removes their ability to control their character, I think that's a clear reduction in the player's agency. It may be justified via any number of fictional reasons, but it still takes away their ability to change the game state. 

But I think this is just one example of how agency can be taken away. And I don't think that the reverse is true.....that giving a player control over his character may not in and of itself lend agency to that player, not if the system doesn't allow him to change the fiction in any way.



prabe said:


> In the sense that the door can open, I agree. In the sense that opening the door matters ... not so much. If the next encounter is [THING], whether you kick open the door or go down the hall, I don't think you really have agency.
> 
> This is what I mean when I talk about it needs to matter if you open the door (or cross the river, or whatever). If the next thing happens wherever you are, whatever you do, you might not have as much agency as you think you do.




Sure, that's true. A GM can always quantum ogre the situation and force certain outcomes. In such a case, agency may be taken away, but the illusion of it may remain. I'm not really a fan of that, and I think it's kind of a breach of play expectations.

But that's not what I was going for. My example was admittedly simple.....but if we accept that there is something beyond the door, something that will only be revealed by getting the door open in some way.....then my character kicking the door open reveals that something....and then the fiction moves forward accordingly.



prabe said:


> Agreed.




I think we embrace a lot of limitations on our agency....genre, game mechanics, and so on.....and those are fine. I think these things are so accepted that they're being ignored by some....but they are absolutely constraints on how characters can interact with and alter the fiction.


----------



## prabe

Lanefan said:


> The risk of allowing players to edit scenes are twofold.  One you've already hit on yourself, that being a hard-to-manage increase in setting inconsistencies as things go along. The other is the risk of players editing scenes specifically in order to unduly benefit either their own PCs or the party as a whole; maybe not all the time (though I've known some who would) but at key pivotal moments, simply as an extension of the players' duty to advocate for their characters.




I think "unduly" is a key word, here. If the game has been written to allow the players to pay some price to edit scenes--I'm thinking of Mutants and Masterminds specifically here, which charges a Hero Point (limited resource) and IIRC allows the GM to veto said edits--then I think the GM should allow them to edit scenes, while being willing to use their veto if a player goes too far. If there's no price, I agree there are players who are susceptible to the temptation to give their characters more of an edge than is warranted. The rewards when it works, though, are ... pretty awesome, really; I just don't find that it works often enough to be worth the headache/s.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> I believe I have located at least one locus of the failure to communicate, here. Player agency (as I've been trying to use it consistently) is about the players making decisions for or through their characters, which choices alter the fictional state. So player agency isn't involved in the action of swimming across the river so much as in the decision to do so. If the fictional state doesn't change--if the encounters are the same whether or not the river is swum, if the same results attain--then there's no player agency involved, even if the action (swimming across the river) is resolved. When I say "THIS IS WHERE THE AGENCY HAPPENS" I mean in the decision to swim across the river, not as much in the declaration of the action.
> 
> I know I use the term differently than you; I'm hoping that you can see what I mean, and why I see things like "The DM Decides" (as a method of action resolution) as I do--as not impinging on player agency *as I use the term.*




And, that's cool.  But, I question the location at which you've cited agency.  Simply, if deciding is the location of the agency, then how do downstream things have the ability to negate it?  If I decide to swim the river, you're saying that's where agency happens.  But, you also say that if the fictional state doesn't change because of that decision and intervening action declaration to operationalize it, then agency isn't involved.  I don't understand how I have agency at the moment of decision but then lose it if the follow-on action declaration is resolved in a way that doesn't change the fiction.  Doesn't it seem that the actual action here, the real deciding point, is if the fiction changes?

I'm not trying to harp on your point, I'm trying to understand because it doesn't flow for me.  I don't see how a downstream effect can render agency moot if it resides in the act of deciding.  Oh, and then there's the question of if I change my mind after deciding and decide something else, do I double my agency (not a serious question, attempted joke)?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Lanefan said:


> My GM often asks me what's what if-when anything maritime comes up - I grew up around boats and he doesn't really know a boat from a beachball - but he still retains full right of veto (rarely if ever exercised, but it's there nonetheless) if what I tell him doesn't mesh with what he's thinking.
> 
> The risk of allowing players to edit scenes are twofold.  One you've already hit on yourself, that being a hard-to-manage increase in setting inconsistencies as things go along. The other is the risk of players editing scenes specifically in order to unduly benefit either their own PCs or the party as a whole; maybe not all the time (though I've known some who would) but at key pivotal moments, simply as an extension of the players' duty to advocate for their characters.



There's a lot of thought on this, albeit mostly from the Forge.  To sum up in the most useful manner, you have a problem when a player of a game (regardless of role) has authority to decide both the challenge and the solution.  This creates a state of play that isn't a game anymore, but it storytelling.  It's also likely to be dissatisfying for the other players and even for the authoring player.

Game avoid this by having one player, usually the GM, present the challenge.  The player tries to present the solution, which may or may not be subject to a resolution mechanic.  This can allow a player to, indeed, "edit" a scene by authoring a success which, one would hope, will benefit their PC, but not unduly because of the constraint of the presented challenge and the constraint that the action address the challenge.  

I think you may be thinking of a player declaring that they find 10k gold coins in the den of the kobolds, yes?  That's usually not a valid action declaration because it doesn't follow from the established fiction -- ie, it's a non-sequitur.  This is also a case of the player presenting the challenge (do I find 10k gold coins) and the solution (yup, in the kobold's den).  It's not a valid action in the games I'm thinking of (although it would be valid in other games that are more storytelling exercises).  

To give a concrete example, players in Blades in the Dark are encouraged to narrate actions such that they add to the scene.  Like, say, you get in a bar fight and you grab a metal spittoon to hit someone with.  The spittoon wasn't part of the GM's scene setting, but it makes sense that one could be in a bar.  The GM either must let the action happen or can challenge it with the mechanics.  Since this seems like it has the potential to make things more interesting, it should, according to the game principles, go to challenge.  So, mechanics in Blades is such that it's heavily weighted towards success with cost or complication.  Since the action is complex -- establishing a spittoon that within reach and that then is successfully used to hit someone -- the range of outcomes is pretty large.  Let's say, though, that the action fails.  The GM is now free to narrate that failure within the fiction established and the genre of the game -- ie it has to make sense.  Let's further say that the GM had framed this opponent as armed with a knife.  That means the fiction is likely to be dangerous to the PC.  On a failure, the GM narrates that the spittoon is there, but it's slippery, and in the time it takes to get a hold of it, the PC is stabbed in the ribs, Harm 3 (this is bad, think sucking chest wound) (further, this would all flow from the resolution mechanics, part of which is a severity of failure component established before the roll).  The player, though, still has lots of options.  They decide to mark a box of armor, which costs 2 equipment, and reduce the harm by 1.  They then use a Resistance roll (which costs stress) to deny the resolution, forcing the GM to reduce the impact again.  The GM downgrades the Harm to 1, or minor, it's a nasty cut across the ribs, and it stings, but nothing that'll slow you down.  

This example of play showcases the player editing the scene, especially at the end with the Resistance roll.  The player forces the GM to mitigate the result of the failure, twice, but it still results in a good scene of play that doesn't unduly benefit the PC.  This is one example of many kinds of ways games built to do this manage avoiding the kinds of situations you're concerned about.


----------



## Fenris-77

@Lanefan - Challenge level posed by the GM, as a part of how he runs his bit of the game, has a huge impact on player agency and thus player expectations of agency. It doesn't matter that the declared action is the same at all, it's the expected outcome that's different and that's where the differential agency comes from - it's part of the table contract, essentially. Anything outside of combat is affected by choices in playstyle and will certainly effect player decisions on declared actions.

Second, the modification of setting elements indexes authorial ability, thus narrative control, thus agency. Again, it's about expectations and what is generally the case, not that the GM is deciding. The decision does indeed rest with the GM, although it doesn't in all games, but what's important is how the game is generally played at the table, not that the GM is deciding. There are many games, including styles of D&D game, where the precise reason there will be a chandelier is because the player asked about it. If the player didn't ask, it wouldn't matter. That doesn't mean there's _always_ a chandelier, it still needs to make sense (no, there's no chandelier in the privy), but if there's no good reason why there shouldn't be a chandelier, then there isn't really a good reason to say there isn't if someone asks (or a balcony, or whatever minor prop is in question). I am not suggesting that everyone needs to run things this way but it does index greater player agency. This is exactly how my games run btw, so I'm not just spitballing a possibility. 

Both of these are excellent examples of how player agency is about far more than just being able to declare actions.

In both cases you are, I feel, conflating _who_ is deciding for _how_ they are deciding when it comes to what's actually important vis a vis agency. In both cases the GM is, in essence, devolving some authority onto the player, or more accurately in the first case, adjudicating success with greater impact on the narrative, and in the second devolving a portion of authorial control.


----------



## Manbearcat

Three things:

1)  *Agency*, as a concept in social science, requires *both *the ability to make an _autonomous decision_ and _then to enact it_ with the same autonomy.  Merely the ability to navigate a decision-point independently is not sufficient. 

2)  The reason why I frequently invoke the OODA Loop is because it encapsulates all of the necessary components of Agency; Observe > Orient > Decide > Act.  You can't get actual agency without the A.  To observe, then orient, then decide isn't sufficient.

3)  I think contemplating the nature of agency in Heist/Delve play is very interesting and informative, but probably for a different reason than some think.  Its not because of less agency in this type of play, but its because of the way system and GMing ethos integrate so well to optimize the very specific kind of agency required to achieve the apex play priority (_to test player's skill in a confined obstacle course of danger_).  The gameplay is encoded with all of the coherent machinery to allow play to express exactly the kind of agency required to pursue its agenda with all vigor.  Nothing more, nothing less.  So talking about this sort of play as having less, or even more, agency than games that allege to identify with "create dramatic narrative" (no matter how that narrative is created) doesn't seem particularly apt I don't think. 

I think what is apt is "what is this game trying to do" and "what sort of agency (including limits) is required to pursue that agenda with all vigor."

This is also why I think agency is often very tenuous, moment in and moment out, with a propensity to go wobbly in games that allege to try to do both things at once (_test player's skill in a confined obstacle course of danger _and_ create dramatic narrative).  _The type of agency required to do the former is often at tension to do the latter...and simultaneously, the system tech (but not GMing ethos, interestingly, the GMing ethos of the former and the latter can coincide perfectly) required to crystalize and propel the former agency is almost always not the same as what is required for the latter.

Again, which is why games like Blades in the Dark and Torchbearer are so bloody brilliant.  This is also, why 4e to me was brilliantly designed.  No, it wasn't a delve game, but it was very much like a heist game with a formula of thematic action scenes heaped on top of each other as they snowball into a dramatic narrative (with the system tech and GMing ethos to propel the whole thing when GMed correctly).


----------



## Fenris-77

I think the very specific kind of agency present in Delve play probably isn't the common usage of 'agency' although I completely agree with your reading of Torchbearer and Blades. Common parlance, IMO, is pretty firmly in the "create dramatic narrative" camp when it comes to discussions of agency. 

Also, I probably should have been specific about my post in reply to @forgreaver above, that's all contextual to within D&D. Sorry 'bout that.

Here's a good question -  what is it, exactly, that we thing D&D does well from an agency standpoint?


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> I think the very specific kind of agency present in Delve play probably isn't the common usage of 'agency' although I completely agree with your reading of Torchbearer and Blades. Common parlance, IMO, is pretty firmly in the "create dramatic narrative" camp when it comes to discussions of agency.
> 
> Also, I probably should have been specific about my post in reply to @forgreaver above, that's all contextual to within D&D. Sorry 'bout that.
> 
> Here's a good question -  what is it, exactly, that we thing D&D does well from an agency standpoint?



I strongly disagree.  If you look to @Manbearcat's definition of agency, that's very much present in delve play, so long as the GM is following the principles of that play by adjudicating impartially and sticking to the prep.  Players very much have the ability to both declare actions and enact them.


----------



## FrogReaver

Manbearcat said:


> Three things:
> 
> 1)  *Agency*, as a concept in social science, requires *both *the ability to make an _autonomous decision_ and _then to enact it_ with the same autonomy.  Merely the ability to navigate a decision-point independently is not sufficient.




From Wikipedia -
In social science, *agency* is defined as the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices.

I agree with your definition and think it's a bit more precise than Wikipedia's.  That said I must caution in it's use because "making a decision and actually acting upon it" is easily confused with "making a decision and successfully acting upon it".



> 3)  I think contemplating the nature of agency in Heist/Delve play is very interesting and informative, but probably for a different reason than some think.  Its not because of less agency in this type of play, but its because of the way system and GMing ethos integrate so well to optimize the very specific kind of agency required to achieve the apex play priority (_to test player's skill in a confined obstacle course of danger_).  The gameplay is encoded with all of the coherent machinery to allow play to express exactly the kind of agency required to pursue its agenda with all vigor.  Nothing more, nothing less.  So talking about this sort of play as having less, or even more, agency than games that allege to identify with "create dramatic narrative" (no matter how that narrative is created) doesn't seem particularly apt I don't think.
> 
> I think what is apt is "what is this game trying to do" and "what sort of agency (including limits) is required to pursue that agenda with all vigor."
> 
> This is also why I think agency is often very tenuous, moment in and moment out, with a propensity to go wobbly in games that allege to try to do both things at once (_test player's skill in a confined obstacle course of danger _and_ create dramatic narrative).  _The type of agency required to do the former is often at tension to do the latter...and simultaneously, the system tech (but not GMing ethos, interestingly, the GMing ethos of the former and the latter can coincide perfectly) required to crystalize and propel the former agency is almost always not the same as what is required for the latter.




Fully agree here.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> I think the very specific kind of agency present in Delve play probably isn't the common usage of 'agency' although I completely agree with your reading of Torchbearer and Blades. Common parlance, IMO, is pretty firmly in the "create dramatic narrative" camp when it comes to discussions of agency.
> 
> Also, I probably should have been specific about my post in reply to @forgreaver above, that's all contextual to within D&D. Sorry 'bout that.
> 
> Here's a good question -  what is it, exactly, that we thing D&D does well from an agency standpoint?



Separate response for your question as I don't want to mix the two thoughts.

It depends on the D&D.  4e does dramatic agency pretty well.  Moldvoy Basic does delve agency very well.  5e mixes these up a lot, so agency is more up to the individual GM/table than particularly encouraged by the ruleset.  Other editions seem to follow this model as well.

Fundamentally, D&D has an identity problem.  I think that's why it's so successful -- it's moldable to many approaches so it's playable by many tables.  I don't think it bakes in agency very much at all so much as leaves it up to the individual tables to find a GMing method that works for them.  I know that how I run 5e is pretty different from a number of posters, and agency, therefore, resides in different places and amounts accordingly.  I don't see that as a strength of D&D, honestly, because it does allow for so many bad options to exist (we all read the stories of play spiraling off, the OP is a modest example).  I like it anyway because it's allowed me to alter how I approach 5e to 1) better use the system as it is presented in the rules and 2) make the minimum changes necessary to achieve my style of play.  And, those changes are minimal.  I'd say I have a large amount of dramatic agency for players in my game, but much less delve agency.  I do this by limiting my prep to challenging situations and not solutions.  Others have different preferences and so do different things and have different types and quantities of agency.


----------



## FrogReaver

Fenris-77 said:


> Also, I probably should have been specific about my post in reply to @forgreaver above, that's all contextual to within D&D. Sorry 'bout that.
> 
> Here's a good question -  what is it, exactly, that we thing D&D does well from an agency standpoint?




No problem.  IMO.  In D&D you can have your PC decide to do nearly anything and follow through with that action or die trying - which is pretty much the exact kind of agency we have in the real world.


----------



## FrogReaver

The Case for Adding options not increasing agency.

Let's say I am presented with 2 doors.  Behind one is a prize of $10,000 and behind another is a goat.  I have agency here as I can decide what door to choose and follow through in actions with that decision.

Now let's say I am presented with 3 doors.  Behind one is a prize of $10,000, behind another is a goat and behind the third is a nothing.  It's clear that adding the additional door to choose from didn't increase my ability to decide which door to take, nor did it increase my ability to follow through via action upon that decision.  Therefore, adding additional options doesn't increase agency.  This also applies to taking options away, because if you can't increase agency by adding an option then you can't decrease agency by taking an option away.

That said, there is a time when adding an option or taking an option away can add or remove player agency and that's any circumstance when adding the option takes you from no options to 2 options.  And when removing an option takes you down from 2 options to no options.


----------



## FrogReaver

S'mon said:


> I don't like any definition of 'agency' by which people IRL have no 'agency'!
> 
> The OSR adventurer can attempt to do whatever he/she wants. It feels like the sort of agency we have IRL. It feels like high 'agency' to me. High character agency. Because of player-PC immersion this also translates to high player agency.
> 
> Railroad games by contrast feel like low character agency and low player agency.
> 
> Story-building games have high player agency; they may have low character agency if the characters are at the whim of fate, but this does not matter much as there is little or no player-PC immersion.




Very well said.  I think you should do the talking for me from here on


----------



## Campbell

As written without utilizing techniques and agendas curbed from other games or other versions of Dungeons and Dragons I do not think Fifth Edition is focused on providing player agency over the fiction. I think it is focused on providing satisfying linear storytelling. The advice in the DMG, the assumption of DM driven pacing, the adventures they have released, mechanics that have no real teeth, and their organized play program all point towards a focus on storytelling over game play.

You do not have to run it or play it in that fashion, but the game is tuned for GM story in my opinion.

From accounts I know @S'mon runs a game that affords players a very high degree of agency over the fiction. I suspect @prabe does too. I do not think the Fifth Edition is a great asset in that regard.

I know I will get blowback for saying this, but I think Fifth Edition does a phenomenal job at enabling GM storytelling. The only mainstream game on the market that is better for that purpose is Numenera.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> If the next encounter is [THING], whether you kick open the door or go down the hall, I don't think you really have agency.





hawkeyefan said:


> Sure, that's true. A GM can always quantum ogre the situation and force certain outcomes. In such a case, agency may be taken away, but the illusion of it may remain. I'm not really a fan of that, and I think it's kind of a breach of play expectations.



I think these sorts of examples, divorced from any account of the goals and orientation of play, the processes of play and resolution, and other aspects of context, are almost meaningless as far as player agency is concerned.

If my character is a _hallmage_ (eg in Burning Wheel I am playing a spirit-binder who can summon and control the spirits of hallways; or in Cortex+ Heroic I am play a character with the Sorcery trait who has a SFX that augments all effects created by using sorcery while in a hallway) then the real action might be _getting my character into the hallway_ as opposed to _having my character lured through the door into a chamber_.

If I am playing a D&D game where my PC is a dwarf giant-and-ogre slayer, and we are playing a more-or-less vigourously scene-framed game (which is eg what 4e D&D is probably best suited for), then the GM presenting an ogre as an opponent may be an honouring of player agency.

Now of course is we are playing an OSR/"skilled play" game then the GM is meant to stick to his/her notes. But even there there is the following possibility: as per advice given back in the day (eg by Lewis Pulsipher) the GM might have rolled wandering monster dice in advance, and have a list of pre-rolled wanderers for each dungeon level. So whether the PC goes through the door or down the hallway, the turn clock is checked, the GM notes that itis marked as one that brings a wanderer, and looks at his/her list of Level X wanderers and sees there's an ogre there. And so in the fiction the PC meets an ogre.

In such a case, the player has exactly the amount of agency s/he is meant to have in the game: s/he's decided where his/her PC goes in the dungeon. And the GM has done exactly what s/he is meant to do: namely, applied the time-keeping rules, the wandering monster rules, etc. The key decision point for the player (when wandering monsters are concerned) was not to go through the door or down the hall, but to press on through that dungeon level rather than to fall back to safety;.

This is just like the question about movement and teleportation: without context a particular event or a particular PC ability is not evidence of any particular degree of player agency in RPGing.


----------



## pemerton

FrogReaver said:


> No problem.  IMO.  In D&D you can have your PC decide to do nearly anything and follow through with that action or die trying - which is pretty much the exact kind of agency we have in the real world.



How does _imaging the fictional lives of some fictional people _tell us anything about the _actual_ (not imaginary) degree of agency enjoyed by _actual_ (not imaginary) people who in the real world are engaged in the real social activity of RPGing?

If I play a RPG in which _every consequence of every action I declare for my PC_ is decided by the GM as s/he thinks is fun or reaslistic or <insert other decision-making criterion here> then that would fit your description: my PC can do nearly antying and follow through with that action or die trying.

But that would be a game in which players have virtually no agency. I would not want to play in it. It would suck.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> The successful night time raid rendered the plans for a battle the next day irrelevant. The enemy was defeated and dispersed, and the enemy captain taken prisoner.



Okay.  That makes sense.  They weren't really negating any fiction.  All that had been established was that if the day attack happened, they wouldn't be leading.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> And, that's cool.  But, I question the location at which you've cited agency.  Simply, if deciding is the location of the agency, then how do downstream things have the ability to negate it?  If I decide to swim the river, you're saying that's where agency happens.  But, you also say that if the fictional state doesn't change because of that decision and intervening action declaration to operationalize it, then agency isn't involved.  I don't understand how I have agency at the moment of decision but then lose it if the follow-on action declaration is resolved in a way that doesn't change the fiction.  Doesn't it seem that the actual action here, the real deciding point, is if the fiction changes?




Sticking with the river example, if you'll allow a slight modification: There's a McGuffin that you have come to believe is on the other side of the river; whether this is a conclusion you've drawn as a player or information you've obtained through other in-character actions doesn't seem super-relevant (though I'm not committed to its irrelevance). If the GM has decided, for whatever reason--this is a decision that can be made with good intentions--that you'll find the McGuffin whether or not you swim across the river, you haven't really changed the state of the fiction, so you haven't really exerted agency. If the GM decides after you fail to swim across the river that the McGuffin is on the side of the river you're on, the agency you exerted in the decision to swim across the river has been negated. There might be another way to find the McGuffin, but doing so requires the state of the fiction to change more, in different ways. I don't mind there being multiple paths to the McGuffin, but any path should require actual decisions and actual fiction-changes; and if there is an action resolution that fails--or if the player or character choose a path that doesn't lead to the McGuffin (as in, it goes away from where it has been established the McGuffin is)--that should matter.



Ovinomancer said:


> I'm not trying to harp on your point, I'm trying to understand because it doesn't flow for me.  I don't see how a downstream effect can render agency moot if it resides in the act of deciding.  Oh, and then there's the question of if I change my mind after deciding and decide something else, do I double my agency (not a serious question, attempted joke)?




I get the joke, and I understand my viewpoint on this is ... strange. I quit a Call of Cthulhu campaign when we (the PCs) screwed up and the world didn't end, because it felt as though we hadn't been playing for any stakes, ever, so in spite of all the eldritch monstrosities it didn't matter; and that was worse than the world ending. That left enough of a bad taste in my mouth that I haven't wanted to play Call of Cthulhu since.


----------



## pemerton

I don't understand all this talk about _players editing scenes_.

GM: There's an orc in front of you!
Player: An orc? I draw my sword and stab it dead!
<dice are rolled and rules applied>
GM: OK, now there's a dead orc in front of you.​
Or how about this one (borrowed from @Ovinomancer):

GM: OK, so as you're hanging out in the bar a thug comes at you with a knife!
Player: Jeeprs, a knife? And me with nothing but my leathers and a mean attitude. I look around for something to defend myself with - maybe there's a spitoon nearby?
<dice are rolled and rules applied>
GM: OK, the spitoon you reach for is pretty slippery, but your leathers and attitidue come through for you: you suffer nothing worse than a cut across the ribs.​
If the player can't change the fiction, which means changing the scene, what are they playing for?

We can talk about _what sort of action declarations are permissible_ given rules, genre, etc. We can talk about _who gets to frame scenes _ie who gest to decide which character is where with whom confronted by what. But I just don;t find the language of _editing scenes _to be very helpful at all. Because in basic structure - of framing and of resolution there's no difference between the two examples I posted.


----------



## FrogReaver

Campbell said:


> As written without utilizing techniques and agendas curbed from other games or other versions of Dungeons and Dragons I do not think Fifth Edition is focused on providing player agency over the fiction. I think it is focused on providing satisfying linear storytelling. The advice in the DMG, the assumption of DM driven pacing, the adventures they have released, mechanics that have no real teeth, and their organized play program all point towards a focus on storytelling over game play.
> 
> You do not have to run it or play it in that fashion, but the game is tuned for GM story in my opinion.
> 
> From accounts I know @S'mon runs a game that affords players a very high degree of agency over the fiction. I suspect @prabe does too. I do not think the Fifth Edition is a great asset in that regard.
> 
> I know I will get blowback for saying this, but I think Fifth Edition does a phenomenal job at enabling GM storytelling. The only mainstream game on the market that is better for that purpose is Numenera.





pemerton said:


> How does _imaging the fictional lives of some fictional people _tell us anything about the _actual_ (not imaginary) degree of agency enjoyed by _actual_ (not imaginary) people who in the real world are engaged in the real social activity of RPGing?
> 
> If I play a RPG in which _every consequence of every action I declare for my PC_ is decided by the GM as s/he thinks is fun or reaslistic or <insert other decision-making criterion here> then that would fit your description: my PC can do nearly antying and follow through with that action or die trying.
> 
> But that would be a game in which players have virtually no agency. I would not want to play in it. It would suck.




Who controls the actions of the pc?  Who is deciding what that pc is going to do in the game and follows through by actually having the pc take that action on the game?

imo character agency and player agency are linked.  you can’t have character agency without player agency.


----------



## prabe

Campbell said:


> As written without utilizing techniques and agendas curbed from other games or other versions of Dungeons and Dragons I do not think Fifth Edition is focused on providing player agency over the fiction. I think it is focused on providing satisfying linear storytelling. The advice in the DMG, the assumption of DM driven pacing, the adventures they have released, mechanics that have no real teeth, and their organized play program all point towards a focus on storytelling over game play.
> 
> You do not have to run it or play it in that fashion, but the game is tuned for GM story in my opinion.
> 
> From accounts I know @S'mon runs a game that affords players a very high degree of agency over the fiction. I suspect @prabe does too. I do not think the Fifth Edition is a great asset in that regard.
> 
> I know I will get blowback for saying this, but I think Fifth Edition does a phenomenal job at enabling GM storytelling. The only mainstream game on the market that is better for that purpose is Numenera.




I think that the publication model WotC are using for 5E is more-focused on selling long-form adventures than anything else, and I don't think that long-form published adventures focus at all on character agency (or, really, player characters). I have felt the same way about Paizo's Adventure Paths for Pathfinder as well--and those I've just played through, not run.

I really like 5E, but I don't doubt that a lot of people who run it do so in a way that at least approaches what you call "GM storytelling." I don't *think* I run it that way (I'd certainly prefer not to), but I'm hardly the most objective witness regarding that. Anyone interested is welcome to peruse the campaign notes (I'll post a link if asked) but I'm also not sure if those are dispositive in that regard.


----------



## FrogReaver

pemerton said:


> I don't understand all this talk about _players editing scenes_.
> 
> GM: There's an orc in front of you!​Player: An orc? I draw my sword and stab it dead!​<dice are rolled and rules applied>​GM: OK, now there's a dead orc in front of you.​
> Or how about this one (borrowed from @Ovinomancer):
> 
> GM: OK, so as you're hanging out in the bar a thug comes at you with a knife!​Player: Jeeprs, a knife? And me with nothing but my leathers and a mean attitude. I look around for something to defend myself with - maybe there's a spitoon nearby?​<dice are rolled and rules applied>​GM: OK, the spitoon you reach for is pretty slippery, but your leathers and attitidue come through for you: you suffer nothing worse than a cut across the ribs.​
> If the player can't change the fiction, which means changing the scene, what are they playing for?
> 
> We can talk about _what sort of action declarations are permissible_ given rules, genre, etc. We can talk about _who gets to frame scenes _ie who gest to decide which character is where with whom confronted by what. But I just don;t find the language of _editing scenes _to be very helpful at all. Because in basic structure - of framing and of resolution there's no difference between the two examples I posted.




imo, failure changes the scene even if nothing in the scene changes other than PCX failed


----------



## Fenris-77

Ovinomancer said:


> I strongly disagree.  If you look to @Manbearcat's definition of agency, that's very much present in delve play, so long as the GM is following the principles of that play by adjudicating impartially and sticking to the prep.  Players very much have the ability to both declare actions and enact them.



Allow to me to clarify further, I completely agree with you. 100%. I was just saying that common usage of 'player agency' is perhaps more focused on 'create dramatic narrative'. I was identifying that a a potential source of confusion, not disagreeing with @Manbearcat .

As for your second post, we have very similar approaches to 5E. I was actually kind of indexing myself as an example of preferencing one kind of agency without giving enough discussion space to another (delve particularly) that I don't use as much.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> I think that many are looking at player agency as "I am able to declare all actions for my characters, and no one else can do so, barring certain specific instances" and I think that's only a very small part of it. I do think that a player controlling their character, and not being restricted in how they do so is generally a good thing.....I just don't think it constitutes a meaningful definition of player agency for the context of this conversation.
> 
> If I am simply able to say "My character tries this" and it happens, then I have agency. If I am able to say "My character tries this" and we use dice to determine success, then I have agency. If I say "My character tries this" and the GM has to determine if it's possible.....here's where it gets tricky. I may still have agency because my desire may come about in the fiction (ME: "I want to kick in the door"--->GM (decides by fiat): "The door goes flying off its hinges"; in this way the GM has facilitated my agency, as @pemerton mentioned earlier). But if the GM unilaterally decides to block my action, then it's a restriction on my agency (ME: "I want to kick in the door" ---> GM (decides by fiat): "You try your hardest, but the door simply will not budge").
> 
> Of those three admittedly basic processes for the game.....1) action simply happens, 2) we use dice to determine outcome, or 3) GM decides yea or nay......only one of them can result in 0% agency. Not that it always does or even mostly does.....but only one of them has it as a possibility. *Would you agree with this? *




If you try to bash the door down and fail the roll, your declaration fails in the fiction just the same as if the DM says no.  If the roll succeeds, it succeeds in the fiction just the same as if the DM says yes.

I don't see how relying on a random roll grants you agency with your declaration.  Either the die roll says yes or no, or the DM says yes or no.  Either way you are dependent on something outside of your control(barring the ability to re-roll or something which gives some limited control).  If one method that results in failure equals no agency, then the other equals no agency as well.



> If so, then a player declaring actions for his character does not display agency in and of itself.....because the GM can deny every single action.




No he can't.  Just like he can't approve every action.  Either of those things would be a blatant violation of the social contract and the game rules.  The DM like the players, has to act in good faith with his rulings.



> I think what's happening in this conversation a lot is that people are looking at it as "agency is good" and "My game is not bad" so "My game must have agency". And I think this is leading to some real contortions and justifications to prove that agency is present. I am not saying this is true of you, but I think that it accounts for the fact that there are different definitions of agency being used in the discussion.
> 
> If we take away the idea that "agency is always good" and then just start to look at it as a thing that exists or does not.....that there are good instances of agency being removed, and there are bad instances of agency being present.....then we have a clearer view.




I look at it as...

1) The players declare how they want to try and change the fiction.
2) For the vast majority of declarations, both success and failure change and shape the fiction, so virtually every declaration, regardless of auto success, auto failure, or die roll to determine, succeeds in changing the game world.
3) Since pretty much every declaration will change the fiction somehow, the ability to make declarations gives them agency.  They have full control over how their character will shape the fiction through both successes and failures.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I don't understand all this talk about _players editing scenes_.
> 
> GM: There's an orc in front of you!​Player: An orc? I draw my sword and stab it dead!​<dice are rolled and rules applied>​GM: OK, now there's a dead orc in front of you.​
> Or how about this one (borrowed from @Ovinomancer):
> 
> GM: OK, so as you're hanging out in the bar a thug comes at you with a knife!​Player: Jeeprs, a knife? And me with nothing but my leathers and a mean attitude. I look around for something to defend myself with - maybe there's a spitoon nearby?​<dice are rolled and rules applied>​GM: OK, the spitoon you reach for is pretty slippery, but your leathers and attitidue come through for you: you suffer nothing worse than a cut across the ribs.​
> If the player can't change the fiction, which means changing the scene, what are they playing for?
> 
> We can talk about _what sort of action declarations are permissible_ given rules, genre, etc. We can talk about _who gets to frame scenes _ie who gest to decide which character is where with whom confronted by what. But I just don;t find the language of _editing scenes _to be very helpful at all. Because in basic structure - of framing and of resolution there's no difference between the two examples I posted.




I'll give this a shot. I don't know what you know about the games I'll talk about, so I'll try not to skip anything important. If something seems overly basic, it's because I'm presuming this is new to you, not because I believe you to be stupid--I emphatically do not.

While Fate has (arguably) a similar mechanic, I'm specifically thinking about Mutants and Masterminds, second edition (they're on third edition, but I don't know it as well; and it's been a while since I played or ran even second edition). As you might guess from the title, it's a superhero roleplaying game. Characters have Hero Points that can be spent in several ways: You can use them to re-roll an action resolution, you can use them to temporarily add an ability to your character, you can use it to increase a power's effectiveness (I'm whiffing on the mechanics here, but I can probably find them if you want), or you can use them to edit a scene.

In all cases, when you use them they are actually spent--something like the Certificate I remember you mentioning in I think Prince Valiant--so they are a limited resource. If a player wants to use a Hero Point to edit a scene, he does something at the table to indicate this (we used beads to represent Hero Points, I gather some people use poker chips--IIRC it's strongly recommended in the rules that there be physical tokens), and he proposes his edit to the GM. The GM approves it, or doesn't, or makes a counteroffer (which can lead to further negotiation). There are at least recommended limits to the editing--it shouldn't be an instant-out. The scene is then re-written (I think "re-framed" might fit with the terminology you've been using) to reflect this change. Adding the spittoon from your example would fly; I had a player at my table do it once to edit ambulances into the approaching first responders. IIRC, an example in the game book involves a PC being locked in a storeroom by a villain with plant powers editing the storeroom to contain herbicide/s.

Does that help?


----------



## Campbell

@FrogReaver 

I have clarified repeatedly that I am speaking to a player's agency over *the fiction *meaning their capacity to make decisions for their characters that have a material impact on the current situation play is focused on (what is on screen). The ability to declare what your character does is *necessary, but not sufficient. *A player needs to be able to make informed decisions based on fiction that have a genuine impact on what happens. We play to find out what happens.

I am using player agency in the same way I have seen it used in the indie and OSR circles I travel in. Player agency as it relates to playing tabletop roleplaying games had its roots in people who were trying to design story and character focused games that were not about the GM telling a story. 

The constraints on a player's ability to declare actions for their character are like important to discuss. That's not what I am talking about though. I am talking about decisions that have impact.


----------



## Campbell

Here's the thing about legal moves. Sometimes not every legal move will be a good move to make for satisfying play, particularly when it comes to the GM.

So in Apocalypse World when a player has a their character do something to trigger a player side mechanic/move it will often say on 6- expect the worse. As an MC/GM you are instructed in these situations to make as hard of move as you want to. The best GM moves to make in these situations are often not hardest and usually not the softest. Part of the skill of running a game is making the right moves and not just the legal ones.

In any game where a GM is given a good deal of latitude like they are in Fifth Edition or Apocalypse World making the right calls based on play priorities, rather than just ones you have the authority to make is huge. I expect players to provide feedback and try to hold me accountable if they feel I made the wrong call even if I had the authority to make it at the time. This is how we get better.


----------



## Maxperson

Manbearcat said:


> Three things:
> 
> 1)  *Agency*, as a concept in social science, requires *both *the ability to make an _autonomous decision_ and _then to enact it_ with the same autonomy.  Merely the ability to navigate a decision-point independently is not sufficient.




Under that definition, it is also not sufficient if there are rules involved.  Anything that limits the ability to enact the decision, such as rules saying how to go about enacting the decision, would take away agency, unless you are equally limited in making those decisions in the first place.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> If my character is a _hallmage_ (eg in Burning Wheel I am playing a spirit-binder who can summon and control the spirits of hallways; or in Cortex+ Heroic I am play a character with the Sorcery trait who has a SFX that augments all effects created by using sorcery while in a hallway) then the real action might be _getting my character into the hallway_ as opposed to _having my character lured through the door into a chamber_.




I feel as though you might have misunderstood me. When I said:



> If the next encounter is [THING], whether you kick open the door or go down the hall, I don't think you really have agency.




The important bit wasn't where the encounter is. Yes, if you are playing a character with special magical mojo in corridors, you probably want encounters to happen there. The important bit was that whichever way you went you'd find [THING]. The choice you make isn't making a difference to the fictional state--you're encountering [THING} whatever you do, whether you want to or not. If your character has that magical hallway mojo going, and he comes to a branch, he'll find [THING] whether he goes left or right; the choice won't matter.


----------



## Libramarian

Campbell said:


> An Apocalypse World GM or a Burning Wheel GM is not a neutral arbiter in the way a B/X referee is. They have agendas laid out by those games they are supposed to follow. It's an active role. Not a passive one. It's like night and day.





pemerton said:


> So much this! It's why I'm a bad OSR-type referee.



I think the extent to which B/X refereeing is passive is perhaps being exaggerated here. When running my B/X game I do generally wait for the PCs to come to the challenge (i.e. it's a sandbox), but in resolving them I'm often guided by a sense of what would make it most satisfying for the players; I'm not always strictly following my notes or extrapolating based on a sense of realism. Classic D&D of course has many gonzo elements that are not really conducive to a purely realistic approach.

An example from a recent session: in an evil wizard's library the party find a reference to the word "Fahoorth". Later in the dungeon, they come across NPCs trapped in cages with bars made of a magical chitinous substance. "Fahoorth" is the password that causes the cage bars to part. I realize the players won't get this without a clue. I wait until the characters happen to say words with "Fuh", "Hoo" or "Th" sounds, and narrate that the bars quiver, seemingly in response to certain sounds being spoken. After much guessing and repetition, a player remembers the password and triumphantly announces it. I could have anticipated this and predetermined the clue, but I didn't feel like I was out of bounds in doing it on the fly.

The party are now escorting the prisoners back to town and I'm playing the prisoners' leader as annoyingly haughty. She could become a useful contact but I'm trying to goad the PCs into abandoning her. Again I'm guided by a sense of challenge, rather than simulation; I didn't have any notes beforehand about her personality. (I also just enjoy the subversive aspect of making powerful NPCs hard to deal with, whereas in most fantasy RPGs progressing the story is all about finding the quest-giver, hearing their info dump and then doing their bidding.)


----------



## S'mon

Campbell said:


> From accounts I know @S'mon runs a game that affords players a very high degree of agency over the fiction.




I don't think that's exactly right. I afford players a very high degree of autonomy in deciding what their player characters do, and this can heavily impact the world-state* in ways I don't attempt to foresee or control. Often this results in highly dramatic and compelling narratives. But I don't run a game of group story creation. I run "You are the Hero - What do you do?"

*I think calling it "the fiction" is detrimental to what I want, which is you-are-there immersion in the fictional world.

I avoid GMing railroads** like the plague, especially these days (I occasionally used to run chain-of-sandboxes linear campaigns, akin to GDQ). PCs need to be adventurous types, but beyond that they can set their own goals - marry the Queen of Quodeth and become Prince-Regent. Defeat the Black Sun and forge a mighty empire across Altanis. Stomp all the dragons & get the biggest pile of loot ever.  Become the Arch-Techno-Druidess of Golarion. Kill Runelord Sorshen. Create a Pan-Thulean alliance against the Great Doom.
Some players & PCs have achieved some of the above goals. 

**Although I am using some Paizo APs in my Runelords campaign, I treat Varisia as a big sandbox where PCs can do what they want, so entire books get ignored (eg Runeforge in Sins of the Saviours). PCs are currently in the Spires of Xin-Shalast and there was a credible chance a couple sessions ago that the PCs would ally with Runelord Karzoug against fellow Runelords Zutha & Krune, after accidentally saving the world and winning Karzoug's favour. I'm planning to use parts of Return of the Runelords, but with one PC sworn to kill Sorshen it is bound to play out wildly differently than in the AP.





__





						Varisia: Rise of the Runelords
					

'For if the greatest prize of Thassilon's first ruler cannot save Varisia... what can?'




					smonscurseofthecrimsonthrone.blogspot.com


----------



## pemerton

FrogReaver said:


> Who controls the actions of the pc?  Who is deciding what that pc is going to do in the game and follows through by actually having the pc take that action on the game?
> 
> imo character agency and player agency are linked.  you can’t have character agency without player agency.



_Character agency_ is a fictional state of affairs - contrast (say) a PC who is charmed with a PC who is not.

Being part of the ficiton, character agency is basically indepenent of player agency.

Some examples form different systems:

* In D&D 4e, a Deathlock Wight has a horrific visage which can make a viewer recoil in terror (mechaincally this is psychic damage, and a push effect with the fear keyword). In recoiling in horror, a character may well be exercising agency (ie there is no need to narrate it as literally involuntary). But the player does not exercise agency at ths particular point of resolution. Once the GM has roled the dice and scored a hit, and the player has not deployed any resources (eg an immediate or free action) to negate the outcome, the player has no choice.

* In Burning Wheel, if a PC fails a Steel check the player gets to choose how to respond: stand and drool, fall prone and beg for mercy, swoon, or run away screaming. This is a reasonable degree of player agency. But in the fictin the response is of course an involuntary one - especially if the character swoons, or stands and drools (ie the character is not exercising agency).

* In my Burning Wheel game, one of the PCs was dominated by a Dark Naga (the spell is called Force of Will; it states that "The caster’s words become thoughts, permanently embedded and resonating against the victim’s personality for the rest of his/her days, as if the victim had formulated them him-/herself; this enables the caster to implant forceful commands into the victim’s mind"). To give this mechical effect, I worked with the player to change one of his PC's Beliefs to reflect this state of affairs - which then gives the player incentives to engage the ficiton having an eye towards that Belief. Following that,the player has played his PC just as normal. Here we see a character with very constrained agency but no particular burden on the player's agency.

* I once played - for a short while - a 2nd ed AD&D game in which the characters had agency (our PCs were awake, undugged, not dominated, etc) but we as players did not: whatever actions we attempted the GM would contrive a reason in the fiction why they didn't work, unless they were the particular action thiat he wanted us to take so as to fit into his predetermined adventure plot. This example shows that there can be character agency without player agency.


----------



## S'mon

Campbell said:


> From accounts I know @S'mon runs a game that affords players a very high degree of agency over the fiction. I suspect @prabe does too. I do not think the Fifth Edition is a great asset in that regard.




5e works pretty well for my kind of sandboxy play; it does lack some of the resources of older editions but these have been partly brought in over time, like the XGTE wilderness encounter tables. And that stuff is easy to import.
5e does not fight me the way 3e/PF does, or the very different way 4e does, so I'm happy enough with it. I do enjoy running a variety of systems though; currently I have running:

5e Princes of the Apocalypse - limited scope sandboxy, focused on fighting the Elemental Cults but no linear path.
5e Primeval Thule - on lockdown hiatus - full sandbox, Quodeth based but PCs range all over. Tons of politics, romance, and other non-dungeony stuff.
Mini Six Primeval Thule - full sandbox, with focus on Claws of Imystrahl.
1e AD&D Forgotten Realms 1359 DR - pretty much a full sandbox, albeit big focus on Damara region. I'd be a bit sad if PCs wanted to leave Damara entirely. Hoping to bring in a lot of the Game of Thrones as PCs rise in level.
5e Runelords Epic 20 - focused on fighting the various Runelords, but much more of a "superhero sandbox" than the original APs. I think of it a lot like the Avengers films.


----------



## pemerton

Libramarian said:


> I think the extent to which B/X refereeing is passive is perhaps being exaggerated here.



I would probably choose "neutral" rather than "passive". Your examples put some presssure on that too. I still think there is a meaningful contrast here, because I know I can run the sorts of games that I do, _and _I know that I can't run OSR-ish type stuff.

Maybe I should say that it's located more in upstream framing - ie in my sort of game there really isn't much framing that is literally "upstream" of play. Even that may not quite work, especially because I know that you are into "unrealistically" interesting rooms and dungeons. Perhaps its the very deliberate lack of neutrality in the orientation of the framing towards the PCs' distinctive characters, and then the way this affects narration of failure, that is key?


----------



## pemerton

FrogReaver said:


> imo, failure changes the scene even if nothing in the scene changes other than PCX failed



That seems a bit orthogonal to what I posted. But whether it is true or false depends (again) on system details.

In BW failure changes the scene, because the GM is obloged to do this in narrating failure.

In AW failure changes the scene, because the GM is obliged to make a move, preferably a hard one, if a player's roll fails.

In AD&D a failed check to pick a lock normally changes the players' available resources (because checks are rationed at one per level vs a given lock) but needn't change the scene: it may be that the PCs are still there in front of the locked door. A famous dungeon which has a lot of room for failure not changing the scene is ToH, because that module doesn't use wandering monsters or any other sort of "clock" to drive things forward.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Campbell said:


> As written without utilizing techniques and agendas curbed from other games or other versions of Dungeons and Dragons I do not think Fifth Edition is focused on providing player agency over the fiction. I think it is focused on providing satisfying linear storytelling. The advice in the DMG, the assumption of DM driven pacing, the adventures they have released, mechanics that have no real teeth, and their organized play program all point towards a focus on storytelling over game play.
> 
> You do not have to run it or play it in that fashion, but the game is tuned for GM story in my opinion.
> 
> From accounts I know @S'mon runs a game that affords players a very high degree of agency over the fiction. I suspect @prabe does too. I do not think the Fifth Edition is a great asset in that regard.
> 
> I know I will get blowback for saying this, but I think Fifth Edition does a phenomenal job at enabling GM storytelling. The only mainstream game on the market that is better for that purpose is Numenera.



I think this last is widely true, but not fully true.  First, I fully agree that this is what the published adventures do, no doubt.  However, if you read the rules and then try to build a game that works best with them, you end up with a location framed challenge game more similar to B/X than the published adventures.  @Iseith is a champion of this kind of play in 5e.  I think that there's a lot of inertia to how people play D&D, and the style of play you present became popular long before 5e.  It's a large reason why so many bounced off 4e.


----------



## Ovinomancer

pemerton said:


> _Character agency_ is a fictional state of affairs - contrast (say) a PC who is charmed with a PC who is not.
> 
> Being part of the ficiton, character agency is basically indepenent of player agency.
> 
> Some examples form different systems:
> 
> * In D&D 4e, a Deathlock Wight has a horrific visage which can make a viewer recoil in terror (mechaincally this is psychic damage, and a push effect with the fear keyword). In recoiling in horror, a character may well be exercising agency (ie there is no need to narrate it as literally involuntary). But the player does not exercise agency at ths particular point of resolution. Once the GM has roled the dice and scored a hit, and the player has not deployed any resources (eg an immediate or free action) to negate the outcome, the player has no choice.
> 
> * In Burning Wheel, if a PC fails a Steel check the player gets to choose how to respond: stand and drool, fall prone and beg for mercy, swoon, or run away screaming. This is a reasonable degree of player agency. But in the fictin the response is of course an involuntary one - especially if the character swoons, or stands and drools (ie the character is not exercising agency).
> 
> * In my Burning Wheel game, one of the PCs was dominated by a Dark Naga (the spell is called Force of Will; it states that "The caster’s words become thoughts, permanently embedded and resonating against the victim’s personality for the rest of his/her days, as if the victim had formulated them him-/herself; this enables the caster to implant forceful commands into the victim’s mind"). To give this mechical effect, I worked with the player to change one of his PC's Beliefs to reflect this state of affairs - which then gives the player incentives to engage the ficiton having an eye towards that Belief. Following that,the player has played his PC just as normal. Here we see a character with very constrained agency but no particular burden on the player's agency.
> 
> * I once played - for a short while - a 2nd ed AD&D game in which the characters had agency (our PCs were awake, undugged, not dominated, etc) but we as players did not: whatever actions we attempted the GM would contrive a reason in the fiction why they didn't work, unless they were the particular action thiat he wanted us to take so as to fit into his predetermined adventure plot. This example shows that there can be character agency without player agency.



Going out on a limb, but I'd say character agency does not exist at all.  Characters cannot choose, being not real.  Any choice made is by the player.  Lacking one of the foundations of agency (ability to choose), characters can't have it.

I think this gets confused because we imagine the character, and can imagine the character making a hard choice.  But, it's still actually us making the choice, not the character.  This is a matter of play and how and where player agency is applied in game.  If you play such that the player can only exercise agency through the character (very common in D&D), then this is easier to confuse.  Other games, where a player can exercise agency through a game mechanic not associated with their character (FATE points spent to add to a scene, frex), it's more clear cut.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> Sticking with the river example, if you'll allow a slight modification: There's a McGuffin that you have come to believe is on the other side of the river; whether this is a conclusion you've drawn as a player or information you've obtained through other in-character actions doesn't seem super-relevant (though I'm not committed to its irrelevance). If the GM has decided, for whatever reason--this is a decision that can be made with good intentions--that you'll find the McGuffin whether or not you swim across the river, you haven't really changed the state of the fiction, so you haven't really exerted agency. If the GM decides after you fail to swim across the river that the McGuffin is on the side of the river you're on, the agency you exerted in the decision to swim across the river has been negated. There might be another way to find the McGuffin, but doing so requires the state of the fiction to change more, in different ways. I don't mind there being multiple paths to the McGuffin, but any path should require actual decisions and actual fiction-changes; and if there is an action resolution that fails--or if the player or character choose a path that doesn't lead to the McGuffin (as in, it goes away from where it has been established the McGuffin is)--that should matter.
> 
> 
> 
> I get the joke, and I understand my viewpoint on this is ... strange. I quit a Call of Cthulhu campaign when we (the PCs) screwed up and the world didn't end, because it felt as though we hadn't been playing for any stakes, ever, so in spite of all the eldritch monstrosities it didn't matter; and that was worse than the world ending. That left enough of a bad taste in my mouth that I haven't wanted to play Call of Cthulhu since.



I not sure this helped, so I'm going to take a stab at what I think you mean.

Agency happens at decision, but can be countered and negated by a later move during resolution?

I still have reservations on this, largely because I don't see having agency in the same way.  I see it as not residing in a specific moment, but rather diffused through a game.  Being able to decide is important, but not enough to ceeate agency.  Likewise action declaration - imprtant but not enough.  Resolution matter as well; do I have the ability to execute my actions?  And, then there's finality -- are my resolved actions final or will they be negated in a follow-up narration by the GM.

Each of these is important to having agency.  None of them are sufficient on their own.  You have to have the suite.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> I still have reservations on this, largely because I don't see having agency in the same way.  I see it as not residing in a specific moment, but rather diffused through a game.  Being able to decide is important, but not enough to ceeate agency.  Likewise action declaration - imprtant but not enough.  Resolution matter as well; do I have the ability to execute my actions?  And, then there's finality -- are my resolved actions final or will they be negated in a follow-up narration by the GM.
> 
> Each of these is important to having agency.  None of them are sufficient on their own.  You have to have the suite.




I don't think your position and mine lead to radically different expectations or GMing styles, do you? I don't entirely disagree that agency is woven throughout the game, I just believe it's exerted (that's the verb I keep coming back to) at discrete points. There are threads of agency all around and they get pulled when and where PCs act. If you exert your agency here, the thread moves there and there and there and probably there and maybe there; I think this is what I mean when I talk about actions having consequences, PCs being able to make mistakes. I think my "consequences" is congruent with your "finality." I think if the GM undoes an action (I don't want to use "negate" here because I can see someone saying "that's impossible" as negation, and I don't think it is) then there was never agency in the first place. Looking back at games from long ago that deeply frustrated me as a player, I can see that this was one of the things that went wrong, at least sometimes.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> If you try to bash the door down and fail the roll, your declaration fails in the fiction just the same as if the DM says no.  If the roll succeeds, it succeeds in the fiction just the same as if the DM says yes.
> 
> I don't see how relying on a random roll grants you agency with your declaration.  Either the die roll says yes or no, or the DM says yes or no.  Either way you are dependent on something outside of your control(barring the ability to re-roll or something which gives some limited control).  If one method that results in failure equals no agency, then the other equals no agency as well.




Let me start off by saying that what I think constitutes agency is more involved than the examples I was giving in reply to the question about the Teleport spell. I saw that question as an attempt to find some basis....some foundation, and so I answered it. But I think there are a lot more elements that generally need to be considered. 

I don't think that I'd say that a dice roll and the GM deciding are equally "outside of your control" as you suggest. With a dice roll, generally speaking, as a player I'm going to have some idea of my chances of success....certainly I'll know how good my character may be at a given task. For example, to kick in the door, my character has a high Strength and so it's reasonable he can do it. The GM will likely (hopefully) also share some details on the door that will help inform my decision. Ideally, he'd state what the DC of the check would be. And so on. So I can then as a player calculate my odds and the risk of failure, and can then proceed with the attempt or not. I'm making an informed decision.

If the GM decides, then I likely have a less clear idea of my chances. That may not be the case....I may still have a good idea of my chances because the GM has told me the door is made of flimsy wood and does no appear to be barred from the other side, and he's hopefully going to factor in my high Strength score and so on. If so, great. This is much more simple with certain actions than others, and the door kicking example is an easy one for sure. 

Imagine a more complex action declaration, maybe of the sort offered in the OP.....a PC insulting a NPC. Now, we don't know exactly what the intent of the insult was in the OP, but let's imagine it had a purpose. Let's treat it as an intimidate check trying to convince the baron to negotiate with the PCs by letting them know if he doesn't, they're not fond of him and may act against him.

In such an example under the GM decides method, I may have no real sense for chance of success or consequence of failure or anything else. It's a much less informed decision. The GM can choose to narrate a result that I may not have thought was on the table.



Maxperson said:


> No he can't.  Just like he can't approve every action.  Either of those things would be a blatant violation of the social contract and the game rules.  The DM like the players, has to act in good faith with his rulings.




Earlier in the thread, many people said that the DM controls when the mechanics get invoked. The DM decides if a declared action is outright successful, or if a roll is needed to determine success, or if the action is outright impossible. This gives the DM all authority on when the dice are rolled. Yes, we would expect and hope that the DM would use this authority in good faith and with principles guiding him in some way. But these factors are going to vary much more than game mechanics, no? 

If you're playing with the same group you have been for some time, you may have a very strong sense of how your DM may judge these things. And that's great. I'm lucky enough for that to be the case for me and my group. But even still, at times conflict still comes up. No one is going to be 100% consistent. And no two people are going to agree on what 100% consistent may mean. 

Now, if you are playing with a group that is new to you.....you have far less past experience to guide you here, so it becomes even less clear. How can you say what your expectations should be under this system? It's a much bigger gray area. 

So, although yes, shooting down every idea is bad faith play and I doubt such a DM would keep a game together, but it doesn't require bad faith play for there to be less player agency under such a system. The DM could be doing everything that he thinks is right, and another DM could also be doing everything he thinks is right, and you can have two different ways it plays out. 

Compared to a game that adopts the previously mentioned principle of "say yes, or roll the dice", this method is much less clear.



Maxperson said:


> I look at it as...
> 
> 1) The players declare how they want to try and change the fiction.
> 2) For the vast majority of declarations, both success and failure change and shape the fiction, so virtually every declaration, regardless of auto success, auto failure, or die roll to determine, succeeds in changing the game world.
> 3) Since pretty much every declaration will change the fiction somehow, the ability to make declarations gives them agency.  They have full control over how their character will shape the fiction through both successes and failures.




I don't really agree with your number 2, and therefore your conclusion 3. Doesn't that render the idea of player agency moot? When is there not player agency in such a broad application? Also, the bit about players "having full control over how their character will shape the fiction through both successes and failure"; I don't think this exists in D&D, in many cases. The player doesn't decide that when he fails to kick down the door, he breaks his foot, or he makes such a ruckus that it attracts a wandering monster, or any other result of the failure. The DM decides that.

Are you saying that player agency is only taken away if control of a character is taken from them? If so, does this apply to such in game effects as Charm and Dominate Person? Or only when a DM just decides out of the blue "okay, your PC is a NPC now.....too bad, make a new guy"? I suppose this may happen in very rare instances where a PC's alignment shifts to evil in a campaign where the group has agreed for no evil characters. I mean, I'd expect that in such an instance, it would be very obvious to the player that this was the result of his character's actions, and so he'd be choosing to allow this.....but if there are other examples, I'd be interested to hear. I can't really think of any.

I don't see how this broad of a read of agency is meaningful. Otherwise, it sounds like every RPG has an equal amount of player agency....and I don't think that's the case at all.


----------



## chaochou

chaochou said:


> .Announcing an action isn’t agency - such a definition would be a nonsense. Of course, nonsense definitions suit the purposes of GMs wishing to conceal the lack of player agency in their games.




Thought I’d just bring this up again, as it’s been proven true over the last 10 or so pages.


----------



## prabe

chaochou said:


> Thought I’d just bring this up again, as it’s been proven true over the last 10 or so pages.




On the other hand, it's been demonstrated that if you can't announce an action you don't have agency, and that if you have agency you can announce an action; so, I don't think the disconnect you think has been proven, has been proven.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> On the other hand, it's been demonstrated that if you can't announce an action you don't have agency, and that if you have agency you can announce an action; so, I don't think the disconnect you think has been proven, has been proven.




I think that the contention here is that you may as well say "if you are not playing the game, then you don't have agency, and if you are playing, then you may." 

Declaring actions is playing the game. It's present regardless of how much agency a game offers to the participants.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> I think that the contention here is that you may as well say "if you are not playing the game, then you don't have agency, and if you are playing, then you may."
> 
> Declaring actions is playing the game. It's present regardless of how much agency a game offers to the participants.




While a player can attempt to exert agency by declaring an action--and even potentially by resolving it--that agency can be undone. I wouldn't say a player whose agency was undone isn't playing, but I might say they don't have agency.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> While a player can attempt to exert agency by declaring an action--and even potentially by resolving it--that agency can be undone. I wouldn't say a player whose agency was undone isn't playing, but I might say they don't have agency.




Right....and they were still declaring actions. Hence why declaring actions is not enough to constitute agency.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> Right....and they were still declaring actions. Hence why declaring actions is not enough to constitute agency.




But declaring actions (or more broadly by making decisions) is how you exert agency. I mean, other than something like Fate Points or Hero Points (in Mutants and Masterminds) where you can change the framing--and I'm not so sure that's exactly agency--how else can a player change the fiction, in play?


----------



## hawkeyefan

@prabe Do you think that it's the declaration where the agency comes into the equation? I don't think you do because you pointed out how that can be undone. 

Saying that a player has to declare an action in order to effect change is as fundamental as saying they have to play the game to effect change. It's so foundational that it's a given, no?

So then at what point does agency come into the picture?


----------



## prabe

@hawkeyefan

Decision (which is probably almost always an action declaration, but I'm open to the possibility it might not be; the decision of which trail to follow doesn't seem as though it requires action-resolution, for example, though acquiring the information on which to base that decision probably does) is when and where players exert--and demonstrate--agency. (Again, leaving aside games with mechanics that allow direct reframing of the fiction.) That agency can be falsified (which word seems better than "undone" or "negated"; I don't feel as though I'm moving the goalposts, here) by the GM in several ways, which mostly revolve around not allowing the players to change the fiction--which one might describe as framing the future (though there may be problems with that description). Once falsified, the agency effectively doesn't exist, and didn't in the first place. If you have two paths that might lead to the McGuffin, and no matter which way you go you find [THING] and then the McGuffin, there's no agency in that decision, even though the players might believe there is; heck, if there's no agency if the GM flips a coin after you decide, either.

I tend to agree with the statement that failure should (at least sometimes) also change the fiction, just in a way contrary to the player's desires. To me, the ability to fail is inherent in agency. I recognize not everyone agrees with that.


----------



## FrozenNorth

chaochou said:


> Thought I’d just bring this up again, as it’s been proven true over the last 10 or so pages.



If it wasn’t convincing then, why do you think repeating it without providing additional reasoning makes it more convincing now?


----------



## pemerton

Ovinomancer said:


> Going out on a limb, but I'd say character agency does not exist at all.  Characters cannot choose, being not real.  Any choice made is by the player.  Lacking one of the foundations of agency (ability to choose), characters can't have it.



That's certainly one way to make sense of it.

I was treating it as an imaginary state of affairs - so a conscious, undrugged etc character is (in the fiction) exercising agency by making choices etc; whereas a dominated or sleepwalking or similar character is not.

My main point is that _the character having agency in the fiction_ is almost completely sepatare from _the player having agency at the table_., Players could have agency narrating the activities undertaken by their sleepwalking PCs (qv the PC in my BW game who is dominated by a dark naga); and players could lack agency in a game where their PCs are awake and active decision-makers (as per the example of an AD&D game I briefly played in before the players all walked).


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> I'll give this a shot. I don't know what you know about the games I'll talk about, so I'll try not to skip anything important. If something seems overly basic, it's because I'm presuming this is new to you, not because I believe you to be stupid--I emphatically do not.
> 
> While Fate has (arguably) a similar mechanic, I'm specifically thinking about Mutants and Masterminds, second edition (they're on third edition, but I don't know it as well; and it's been a while since I played or ran even second edition). As you might guess from the title, it's a superhero roleplaying game. Characters have Hero Points that can be spent in several ways: You can use them to re-roll an action resolution, you can use them to temporarily add an ability to your character, you can use it to increase a power's effectiveness (I'm whiffing on the mechanics here, but I can probably find them if you want), or you can use them to edit a scene.
> 
> In all cases, when you use them they are actually spent--something like the Certificate I remember you mentioning in I think Prince Valiant--so they are a limited resource. If a player wants to use a Hero Point to edit a scene, he does something at the table to indicate this (we used beads to represent Hero Points, I gather some people use poker chips--IIRC it's strongly recommended in the rules that there be physical tokens), and he proposes his edit to the GM. The GM approves it, or doesn't, or makes a counteroffer (which can lead to further negotiation). There are at least recommended limits to the editing--it shouldn't be an instant-out. The scene is then re-written (I think "re-framed" might fit with the terminology you've been using) to reflect this change. Adding the spittoon from your example would fly; I had a player at my table do it once to edit ambulances into the approaching first responders. IIRC, an example in the game book involves a PC being locked in a storeroom by a villain with plant powers editing the storeroom to contain herbicide/s.
> 
> Does that help?



I understand the mechnanic, more or less. As a mechanic it seems to me no different from the following:

In classic AD&D there is a system called _spells_. Spelss are a limited-use resource, similar to Hero Points in M&M or Storyteller Certificates in Prince Valiant.

When the GM frames a scene, one response a player may make is to spend one of these resoures - often called _casting a spell_. There are a range of effects possible, but some are a type of refrraming: eg the _Passwall_ spelll permits the player to substitute for the narration "You see a wall" with the narration "I see a wall with a 5' x 8' by 10' deep hole in it".​
But I've never heard a Passwall spell described as _editing a scene_. It's the terminology that I'm puzzled by, because it seems like it's meant to call out something distinctive but I'm not seeing the boundaries of what is being distinguished.


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> Here's the thing about legal moves. Sometimes not every legal move will be a good move to make for satisfying play, particularly when it comes to the GM.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In any game where a GM is given a good deal of latitude like they are in Fifth Edition or Apocalypse World making the right calls based on play priorities, rather than just ones you have the authority to make is huge. I expect players to provide feedback and try to hold me accountable if they feel I made the wrong call even if I had the authority to make it at the time. This is how we get better.



Yes. I posted more-or-less this back on page 19 of this thread:



pemerton said:


> given that the rules for ability and CHA checks tell us that CHA "measures your ability to interact effectively with others" and that "an ability check tests a character’s or monster’s innate talent and training", it follows that a GM who decides the tyrant's reaction without calling for a check has decided that _no amount of innate talent or training in respect of interacting with others can influence this outcome_. When should a GM make such a decision? According to what principles? With what goals and hopes in mind?





pemerton said:


> The rules may not tell us what is the best approach here, but that doesn't mean it's pointless to talk about better and worse approaches.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> On the other hand, it's been demonstrated that if you can't announce an action you don't have agency, and that if you have agency you can announce an action; so, I don't think the disconnect you think has been proven, has been proven.



@chaochou is correct: _announcing an action is not agency in any interesting sense for RPGing_. I played an AD&D game years ago, breifly before I and the other players walked, in which every action we announced achieved _nothing _unless the GM could narrate an outcome that was the one he wanted to make his pre-written adventure work as he'd written it.

Any other action he rendered ineffective by exercising control over the fiction eg NPCs would refuse or be unable to answer questions, provide assistance, etc.

If that GM started posting in this thread saying that players in his game had agency _because they could announce actions_ it would be a joke. I was there. Action declarations in that game were pointless, because the GM was just working through a sequence of events that as already written.

This thread, and the OP, have brought back memories of that experience.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I understand the mechnanic, more or less. As a mechanic it seems to me no different from the following:
> 
> indent]In classic AD&D there is a system called _spells_. Spelss are a limited-use resource, similar to Hero Points in M&M or Storyteller Certificates in Prince Valiant.
> 
> When the GM frames a scene, one response a player may make is to spend one of these resoures - often called _casting a spell_. There are a range of effects possible, but some are a type of refrraming: eg the _Passwall_ spelll permits the player to substitute for the narration "You see a wall" with the narration "I see a wall with a 5' x 8' by 10' deep hole in it".[/indent]
> 
> But I've never heard a Passwall spell described as _editing a scene_. It's the terminology that I'm puzzled by, because it seems like it's meant to call out something distinctive but I'm not seeing the boundaries of what is being distinguished.




I don't appear to have explained it adequately.

Spells are actions, something the player declares the character is doing. One acquires spells by finding them--either in captured spellbooks or on scrolls--or by random chance--the spells one acquires at a new level. One has a set number of spells one can prepare and cast, as a feature of one's class level (in the case of _passwall_ it looks as though that class would have to be Magic-User). Once one has cast a prepared spell it's no longer available (barring preparing it more than once). Casting a spell takes some amount of segments or rounds (or longer in some instances), and the effects are clearly defined--_passwall_ has specific effects, which are different from _phantasmal force_, which are different from _alter reality_.

Using a Hero Point in Mutants and Masterminds (or using the similar rules in Fate, whereby one can use a Fate Point to "Declare a Detail") is a thing the player is explicitly doing as the player; it's not an action they're declaring their character as doing. They are much more limited a resource than spells are in AD&D--the default in Mutants and Masterminds is one Hero Point; the default number in Fate Core is three Fate points. Using a Hero Point in this way (as a subset of "Inspiration) in Mutants and Masterminds is described in the rules as "intended to give the players more input into the story and allow their heroes chances to succeed"; using a Fate Point this way (as "Declaring a Detail") is described in the rules thus: "Sometimes you want to add a detail that works to your character's advantage." Note that both rules are explicit that it's the player doing it, not the character. Hero Points in Mutants and Masterminds are acquired when a character undergoes a "Setback" (defined as a failed check with the worst possible result) or a "Complication"(which are described as "essentually setbacks the players choose for their heroes in advance" with examples given as Accident, Addiction, Enemy, Fame, Hatred, Honor, Obsession, Phobia, Prejudice, Reputation, Responsibility, Rivalry, Secret, and Temper. One can also earn Hero Points for suitably heroic acts or particularly good roleplaying (at the GM's description). In Fate, the primary way of acquiring Fate Points is by accepting Compels from the GM.

Does that help clear things up?


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> @chaochou is correct: _announcing an action is not agency in any interesting sense for RPGing_. I played an AD&D game years ago, breifly before I and the other players walked, in which every action we announced achieved _nothing _unless the GM could narrate an outcome that was the one he wanted to make his pre-written adventure work as he'd written it.
> 
> Any other action he rendered ineffective by exercising control over the fiction eg NPCs would refuse or be unable to answer questions, provide assistance, etc.
> 
> If that GM started posting in this thread saying that players in his game had agency _because they could announce actions_ it would be a joke. I was there. Action declarations in that game were pointless, because the GM was just working through a sequence of events that as already written.
> 
> This thread, and the OP, have brought back memories of that experience.




I assure you I didn't mean to drag those memories out of your depths. I have been involved as a player in games that had similar problems, and they can be immensely frustrating.


----------



## Ovinomancer

pemerton said:


> That's certainly one way to make sense of it.
> 
> I was treating it as an imaginary state of affairs - so a conscious, undrugged etc character is (in the fiction) exercising agency by making choices etc; whereas a dominated or sleepwalking or similar character is not.
> 
> My main point is that _the character having agency in the fiction_ is almost completely sepatare from _the player having agency at the table_., Players could have agency narrating the activities undertaken by their sleepwalking PCs (qv the PC in my BW game who is dominated by a dark naga); and players could lack agency in a game where their PCs are awake and active decision-makers (as per the example of an AD&D game I briefly played in before the players all walked).



I agree with your point, but not with phrasing it as involving character agency.  That still just doesn't exist.  The character isn't making choices and the fiction isn't real.  Unreal things cannot have agency because they lack the foundational ability to actually choose.  This is nothing more than a reflection of the player's choice onto the fictional character.

Still, I follow that you're saying a player can exert agency over character action declarations even in a fictional state where the character is in a non-normal fictional state.  That's fine and good.  And I follow that a player can not have agency over a character in an otherwise normal fictional state.  It's still player agency we're talking about -- the character is the vehicle for that agency.  I don't see anything clarifying by imagining the character as having agency.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> I don't think your position and mine lead to radically different expectations or GMing styles, do you? I don't entirely disagree that agency is woven throughout the game, I just believe it's exerted (that's the verb I keep coming back to) at discrete points. There are threads of agency all around and they get pulled when and where PCs act. If you exert your agency here, the thread moves there and there and there and probably there and maybe there; I think this is what I mean when I talk about actions having consequences, PCs being able to make mistakes. I think my "consequences" is congruent with your "finality." I think if the GM undoes an action (I don't want to use "negate" here because I can see someone saying "that's impossible" as negation, and I don't think it is) then there was never agency in the first place. Looking back at games from long ago that deeply frustrated me as a player, I can see that this was one of the things that went wrong, at least sometimes.



No, they don't require radically different expectations of GM styles, but then that's kinda not directly related to discussing where agency exists.  More on this in a moment.

I suppose that I don't really see agency existing at discrete points but rather emerging from the combination of multiple points.  Being able to declare an action isn't agency unless that action has a chance to exert change and isn't later reversed using fiat.  All of these things have to be true for agency to exist -- loss of any of them removes agency.  This is a classic example of the sum being greater than the parts -- each part is important to agency, but the sum of the parts is the full expression of agency.

Back to where agency exists.  One can run a game without ever consciously considering agency, and run it well.  If, however, we are going to consider agency, it helps to define it and locate it in play without reference to supporting or not supporting our preferred play.  I run very different games between systems, and therefore agency changes.  I'd say that my players have more tools available to express agency in my Blades game, but they also give up agency because I can narrate their characters doing unintended things on a failure.  This is all mediated by the mechanics and strong principles of play to achieve the play goals.  Do my players have more agency in Blades than in my 5e game?  Eh.  It's different, but probably, a little bit. Mostly because Blades is so laser focused on play that takes full advantage of the agency it provides and just doesn't do the other stuff where it's agency wouldn't.  5e is more, broad, and that lack of focus means that agency can suffer as play wanders in and out of different areas of agency (Combat, I'm looking at you and your glorious, meticulously structured agency). And, that's absolutely fine.  Amount of agency is not a benchmark for fun.  More agency doesn't equal more fun, and less doesn't equal less.  I love playing Gloomhaven, for instance, but I have a lot less agency in that game than in any RPG.  Yet, I've played in RPGs that aren't nearly as much fun.  Agency != fun.

In fact, I'd say that a large part of good design is where and how you limit agency.  Not provide, but limit.  I find I can play a fun game in 5e, so I don't really care how more or less agency exists between 5e and another game as a matter of how I'm going to spend my entertainment time.  I do care when I'm looking at games and analyzing how they work, and when I do that I'm going to strive to be merciless in my analysis.  This helps me understand the game better, to better understand where the potholes are so I can help steer play around them.  I don't care if I find less agency when I do this, because I want to know where agency exists, where it's threatened, what it's threatened by, so I can use this information appropriately when I run that game.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> I agree with your point, but not with phrasing it as involving character agency.  That still just doesn't exist.  The character isn't making choices and the fiction isn't real.  Unreal things cannot have agency because they lack the foundational ability to actually choose.  This is nothing more than a reflection of the player's choice onto the fictional character.
> 
> Still, I follow that you're saying a player can exert agency over character action declarations even in a fictional state where the character is in a non-normal fictional state.  That's fine and good.  And I follow that a player can not have agency over a character in an otherwise normal fictional state.  It's still player agency we're talking about -- the character is the vehicle for that agency.  I don't see anything clarifying by imagining the character as having agency.




Then who has agency of the character and the character's actions if not the player?

I also think it's important to note that somebit upthread someone shortened player agency over the character to character agency and it stuck.  That may be part of the source of the confusion.


----------



## Campbell

In many cases the GM or other players have a degree of agency over your character's actions. It is often never explicitly stated, but there are social pressures that we all conform to. This is common in games that focus on linear storytelling. In such circumstances players are expected to lean into the GM's story. Another case are inter-player concerns over narrative or niche spotlight. Players speaking over you to have their character do stuff might also affect your agency over your character.

That's beyond the obviously more overt mechanics that also might constrain the way you are expected to play your character.

There are also fictional constraints like established relationships, obligations in setting, station, etc. which should constrain the way you play your character.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> Then who has agency of the character



I believe I have been clear that I do not recognize characters having agency.  There's nothing here to have.


> and the character's actions if not the player?



In the examples given, the player, as I also said, clearly.  That's not necessarily the case, because the character is a piece of the fiction, usually, but not exclusively or always, under the player's control.  Just sticking to 5e, if a character is dominated via magic then the player's agency is either severely restricted to those actions that support the domination effect or the character comes under control of the GM and the player loses agency.  Who has agency to determine character actions is, therefore, only answerable in a specific context of knowing what the game-state is.



> I also think it's important to note that somebit upthread someone shortened player agency over the character to character agency and it stuck.  That may be part of the source of the confusion.



As @pemerton clearly defined what he was talking about, and it wasn't this, I don't see how it's important at all.  It appears the first mention was by @S'mon in post 1121 (ctrl-f is useful).  He didn't really define the term, so I can't tell what he meant by it. After that, it's limited to this discussion outside of one use by @prabe.   I can't say how you've interpreted it, but @pemerton and I have been very clear that character agency is not shorthand for player agency over the character, in pretty much every post.  Maybe it stuck with you, but it doesn't seem to have done so for anyone else discussing this and if you've been using it that way, it's not apparent at all.


----------



## FrogReaver

Hear me out.  

The more I read in this thread the more convinced I am that there are two types of agency and that this concept of 2 types of agency fully explains the conundrum we find ourselves in.  I believe those 2 types of agency are 1. Agency over the character and 2. Agency over the fiction.  For most of us, these concepts have morphed into a Chimera of sorts.  Some of us focus on aspects of the first type of agency and others on aspects of the seconds.  This also appears to be the reason that both sides can disprove the other and view the other sides focal aspects of agency as irrelevant and meaningless.  Essentially for most of us our general notion of Agency requires aspects of both Agency over the character and Agency over the fiction.  This is also why it's so difficult for us all to pinpoint when Agency occurs.

It seems agency over character is the more straightforward and easy to understand concept.  You as a player must be capable of deciding what your character will do and the character in the fiction must be capable of an attempt to follow through with that decision.  Negating either of these things negates this kind of agency.  This kind of agency typically can be tested and thus determined at a definitive moment in play - when a player has a character attempt to do an action.  Whether the character succeeds or fails doesn't matter here, only whether he attempted the action.  

Agency over the fiction is a bit more complicated (and perhaps there's a better term for this concept).  Essentially this is the kind of agency concerning whether a characters fictional actions are capable of having an impact upon the fictional world and it's fictional inhabitants.  More narrative style games come to mind here as the basic mechanics ensure that a characters fictional actions are capable of having an impact upon the fictional world and it's fictional inhabitants.  However, this concept isn't limited to narrative style games.  Games using dice to determine success or failure of a goal and approach would also fall under this same definition.  Then we get to the more controversial subject of whether "DM" decides is a resolution method that fits this definition.  My answer is that so long as the DM has the agency to ensure my actions are capable of that and so long as he chooses to allow my actions to be capable of that then I as player will have agency over fictional outcomes even though the DM sometimes determines my action fail with no dice involved. 

In fact using this framework I can pinpoint exactly when each type of agency fails.  The first fails the moment the player cannot have his character attempt something in the fiction.  The 2nd fails the moment anything takes away the capability for a characters actions to have an impact upon the fictional world or it's fictional inhabitants.


----------



## FrogReaver

I suppose this one liner may help:

Saying that the DM deciding failure has removed player agency is no different than saying a dice coming up failure has removed player agency.


----------



## FrogReaver

pemerton said:


> @chaochou is correct: _announcing an action is not agency in any interesting sense for RPGing_.




Are there no RPG's that prevent you from announcing your characters action under certain circumstances?  Are there none that ever give the ability to announce an action for your character to another player or NPC?


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> Hear me out.
> 
> The more I read in this thread the more convinced I am that there are two types of agency and that this concept of 2 types of agency fully explains the conundrum we find ourselves in.  I believe those 2 types of agency are 1. Agency over the character and 2. Agency over the fiction.  For most of us, these concepts have morphed into a Chimera of sorts.  Some of us focus on aspects of the first type of agency and others on aspects of the seconds.  This also appears to be the reason that both sides can disprove the other and view the other sides focal aspects of agency as irrelevant and meaningless.  Essentially for most of us our general notion of Agency requires aspects of both Agency over the character and Agency over the fiction.  This is also why it's so difficult for us all to pinpoint when Agency occurs.
> 
> It seems agency over character is the more straightforward and easy to understand concept.  You as a player must be capable of deciding what your character will do and the character in the fiction must be capable of an attempt to follow through with that decision.  Negating either of these things negates this kind of agency.  This kind of agency typically can be tested and thus determined at a definitive moment in play - when a player has a character attempt to do an action.  Whether the character succeeds or fails doesn't matter here, only whether he attempted the action.
> 
> Agency over the fiction is a bit more complicated (and perhaps there's a better term for this concept).  Essentially this is the kind of agency concerning whether a characters fictional actions are capable of having an impact upon the fictional world and it's fictional inhabitants.  More narrative style games come to mind here as the basic mechanics ensure that a characters fictional actions are capable of having an impact upon the fictional world and it's fictional inhabitants.  However, this concept isn't limited to narrative style games.  Games using dice to determine success or failure of a goal and approach would also fall under this same definition.  Then we get to the more controversial subject of whether "DM" decides is a resolution method that fits this definition.  My answer is that so long as the DM has the agency to ensure my actions are capable of that and so long as he chooses to allow my actions to be capable of that then I as player will have agency over fictional outcomes even though the DM sometimes determines my action fail with no dice involved.
> 
> In fact using this framework I can pinpoint exactly when each type of agency fails.  The first fails the moment the player cannot have his character attempt something in the fiction.  The 2nd fails the moment anything takes away the capability for a characters actions to have an impact upon the fictional world or it's fictional inhabitants.



The character is part of the fiction.  It's not a separate agency, it's part of the larger agency in the game.

Some games limit player agency to control of the character.  Games like D&D do this, although it's not unique to D&D.  These games really only allow the player to express agency through the character.  People get used to this, and when exposed to other methods of providing agency that don't go through the character, think this is different, because it's different from what they're used to.  But, it's really not.  It's a different tool.  All agency is pointed at making intended changes in the fiction.  It's good to look at the tools used to do this, like control over characters and who has it, but there aren't different kinds of agency at play.

This is far more apparent in other games, where control over character isn't as strongly sited with the player as it is in D&D.  My ability to change the fiction in Blades, for instance, isn't at all limited to the character, and my control over the character is shared.  It makes little sense to discuss agency in Blades in terms of separate agency over the character and agency over the fiction.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> I suppose this one liner may help:
> 
> Saying that the DM deciding failure has removed player agency is no different than saying a dice coming up failure has removed player agency.



I could succeed with the dice, I cannot with a GM that decides.  That's a pretty big difference.  Some chance to no chance.  If you're only evaluating outcomes, you're missing the import of the means.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> I agree with your point, but not with phrasing it as involving character agency.




A small joke: your inability to view my character as having agency is breaking my verisimilitude 

I do agree that fictional characters don't actually have agency.  Then again nothing in fiction "actually" exists.  Your fictional knight, he has no sword because his sword doesn't actually exists any more than my fictional characters agency.  Hopefully the point there is clear.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> I could succeed with the dice, I cannot with a GM that decides.  That's a pretty big difference.  Some chance to no chance.  If you're only evaluating outcomes, you're missing the import of the means.




Agency of any type is not about a chance to succeed.  It's about the capability of being able to succeed.  In a DM decides game that capability for success existed even when something was ruled failure so long as his ruling of failure wasn't done for the reason of removing your capability for success.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> Are there no RPG's that prevent you from announcing your characters action under certain circumstances?  Are there none that ever give the ability to announce an action for your character to another player or NPC?



You seem to have missed the point.  The ability to announce an action isn't agency.  That's what @pemerton said.  So asking if games exist where you are prevented from announcing actions doesn't counter that argument -- whether you are or not, announcing actions isn't agency.  Being able to announce actions for other characters (which can happen in D&D, legally, by the rules) doesn't refute that announcing the action still isn't agency.

You seem to have confused "ability" with "agency".  I have the ability to announce actions.  True.  This gives me agency.  False.  The ability to announce actions is necessary, but not sufficient, for agency to exist.  It's like you've found a car engine and say, aha, this is what makes the car go.  At first glance, this seems reasonable.  But, you also need gasoline.  You also need someone to provide control of the engine.  You also need a car to put the engine in.  The engine is necessary to make a car go, but it is not sufficient by itself.  This is the same for declaring actions for a character in play.  Necessary, not sufficient.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> You seem to have missed the point.  The ability to announce an action isn't agency.  That's what @pemerton said.  So asking if games exist where you are prevented from announcing actions doesn't counter that argument -- whether you are or not, announcing actions isn't agency.  Being able to announce actions for other characters (which can happen in D&D, legally, by the rules) doesn't refute that announcing the action still isn't agency.
> 
> You seem to have confused "ability" with "agency".  I have the ability to announce actions.  True.  This gives me agency.  False.  The ability to announce actions is necessary, but not sufficient, for agency to exist.  It's like you've found a car engine and say, aha, this is what makes the car go.  At first glance, this seems reasonable.  But, you also need gasoline.  You also need someone to provide control of the engine.  You also need a car to put the engine in.  The engine is necessary to make a car go, but it is not sufficient by itself.  This is the same for declaring actions for a character in play.  Necessary, not sufficient.




If you cannot announce your characters action then you have no agency over your character.  That is a very important point.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> Agency of any type is not about a chance to succeed.  It's about the capability of being able to succeed.  In a DM decides game that capability for success existed even when something was ruled failure so long as his ruling of failure wasn't done for the reason of removing your capability for success.



Agency is about the ability to see your intention exerted on the fiction (speaking of agency in game, here).  If my action cannot succeed, I don't have agency merely by announcing it.  Dice mechanics allow for me to have the possibility to exert my intent on the fiction.   A GM unilaterally deciding no does not.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> If you cannot announce your characters action then you have no agency over your character.  That is a very important point.



Yes.  If you car does not have an engine, it does not go.  

Necessary.  Necessary means you have to have it.  

But not sufficient.  Having it alone doesn't get you to the point.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> If you cannot announce your characters action then you have no agency over your character.  That is a very important point.



Wait, I noticed you said "your character."  This I do not agree with.  The ability to announce actions for A character is necessary for an RPG.  It doesn't always need to be _your _character.  5e has lots of being able to declare actions for other characters all over the spell list.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes.  If you car does not have an engine, it does not go.
> 
> Necessary.  Necessary means you have to have it.
> 
> But not sufficient.  Having it alone doesn't get you to the point.




I set two criteria out for agency over a character.
1.  The player must be able to determine the characters actions.
2.  The player must be able to have that decision be attempted by the character in the fiction.

I fully agree that 2 is necessary but not sufficient, but I'm sure not for the reasons you were going for.  So I'm really not sure why you are going on about that?


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> Wait, I noticed you said "your character."  This I do not agree with.  The ability to announce actions for A character is necessary for an RPG.  It doesn't always need to be _your _character.  5e has lots of being able to declare actions for other characters all over the spell list.




Stating it doesn't need to be your character isn't really much of a counterpoint is it?  Are you wanting me to repeat myself about it needing to be your character and get into an arguing match?


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> I could succeed with the dice, I cannot with a GM that decides.  That's a pretty big difference.  Some chance to no chance.  If you're only evaluating outcomes, you're missing the import of the means.




I will explain why this doesn't compute for me. The dice are inscrutable; I have no way of knowing before I know the roll what the outcome will be. I might know the odds, and I might be able to alter them, but on a fundamental level I have no control over the outcome. The GM may or may not be as inscrutable as the dice; I might know the GM's tendencies, or I might not. I might be able to frame the attempted action in such a way that the GM will allow an auto-success, I might not be. I might have more control over the outcome if the GM is deciding than if I'm rolling a die.

I don't see any difference in agency, there.

Another thought: If a failure on a die roll doesn't remove/negate/falsify agency, neither does a failure because the attempted action is impossible. The method by which failure is derived doesn't change the fact that it's a failure, and failure doesn't seem to me to on its own remove/negate/falsify agency.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> I set two criteria out for agency over a character.
> 1.  The player must be able to determine the characters actions.
> 2.  The player must be able to have that decision be attempted by the character in the fiction.
> 
> I fully agree that 2 is necessary but not sufficient, but I'm sure not for the reasons you were going for.  So I'm really not sure why you are going on about that?



I wasn't, as I flatly rejected that "agency over a character" is separable from agency in general.  Did you miss the post where I said that?  It's 1207, and it's a reply to you.  You should have a notification.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> Agency is about the ability to see your intention exerted on the fiction (speaking of agency in game, here).  If my action cannot succeed, I don't have agency merely by announcing it.  Dice mechanics allow for me to have the possibility to exert my intent on the fiction.   A GM unilaterally deciding no does not.




If the DM hasn't ruled on the action then it hasn't failed yet.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> I wasn't, as I flatly rejected that "agency over a character" is separable from agency in general.  Did you miss the post where I said that?  It's 1207, and it's a reply to you.  You should have a notification.




You wasn't what?


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> I will explain why this doesn't compute for me. The dice are inscrutable; I have no way of knowing before I know the roll what the outcome will be. I might know the odds, and I might be able to alter them, but on a fundamental level I have no control over the outcome. The GM may or may not be as inscrutable as the dice; I might know the GM's tendencies, or I might not. I might be able to frame the attempted action in such a way that the GM will allow an auto-success, I might not be. I might have more control over the outcome if the GM is deciding than if I'm rolling a die.
> 
> I don't see any difference in agency, there.
> 
> Another thought: If a failure on a die roll doesn't remove/negate/falsify agency, neither does a failure because the attempted action is impossible. The method by which failure is derived doesn't change the fact that it's a failure, and failure doesn't seem to me to on its own remove/negate/falsify agency.



The example was the GM ruling no by fiat versus getting a failure on the dice.  I had a chance with the dice, but it didn't pan out.  I never had a chance with the GM.  It wasn't about being able to figure the odds in a case where I know and can anticipate the GM.  I'm not  in the camp that thinks that the GM deciding automatically removes any possibility of agency.  Otherwise I'd have to accept that my players in my 5e game do not have agency, because 5e's core mechanic is GM decides.  But, I look at what happens in my game, and lo, I behold agency!  So, yeah, you totes can have agency with the GM deciding, but it really rests on the GM following clear principles of play, choosing to use the game mechanics well, and limiting saying no to clear situations where it's obvious why.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> If the DM hasn't ruled on the action then it hasn't failed yet.



You seem to have forgotten that your example was the GM deciding the action failed.  It's a little late to change it to something else.  If you'd like to, we could discuss a new example.


----------



## Campbell

Here's why I find agency over character behavior in isolation not a very interesting subject when discussing roleplaying games. Playing an RPG is a *social* act. Being able to declare stuff about your character that has no impact on what anyone else at the table does is playing solitaire in the middle of a poker game. There is a very real place for talking about it in the greater context where our play affects one another. I want to talk about poker - not solitaire.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> You wasn't what?



This thread is moving pretty fast, so maybe you forgot you asked a question?  I was responding to your question.  It's post 1216.


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> I will explain why this doesn't compute for me. The dice are inscrutable; I have no way of knowing before I know the roll what the outcome will be. I might know the odds, and I might be able to alter them, but on a fundamental level I have no control over the outcome. The GM may or may not be as inscrutable as the dice; I might know the GM's tendencies, or I might not. I might be able to frame the attempted action in such a way that the GM will allow an auto-success, I might not be. I might have more control over the outcome if the GM is deciding than if I'm rolling a die.
> 
> I don't see any difference in agency, there.
> 
> Another thought: If a failure on a die roll doesn't remove/negate/falsify agency, neither does a failure because the attempted action is impossible. The method by which failure is derived doesn't change the fact that it's a failure, and failure doesn't seem to me to on its own remove/negate/falsify agency.




I would summarize that this way:

The moment the DM determines failure corresponds to the moment the dice determines failure.  Looking from the moment failure was determined in either case and stating there is now no possibility of success is 100% true but not useful.  To determine agency you must look before failure is determined and whether the capability for success exists.  In a DM Decides game all actions have the possibility for success as the DM can decide success for any of them.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> The example was the GM ruling no by fiat versus getting a failure on the dice.  I had a chance with the dice, but it didn't pan out.  I never had a chance with the GM.  It wasn't about being able to figure the odds in a case where I know and can anticipate the GM.  I'm not  in the camp that thinks that the GM deciding automatically removes any possibility of agency.  Otherwise I'd have to accept that my players in my 5e game do not have agency, because 5e's core mechanic is GM decides.  But, I look at what happens in my game, and lo, I behold agency!  So, yeah, you totes can have agency with the GM deciding, but it really rests on the GM following clear principles of play, choosing to use the game mechanics well, and limiting saying no to clear situations where it's obvious why.




Obviously a bad GM can eliminate agency in a large number of ways. My point is (and I think has been, pretty consistently) that "The GM Decides" does not inherently remove agency--especially not if, as you say, the GM limits fiat decisions to cases where it's obvious--I'm kinda willing to allow obvious in retrospect, here, because it might not be obvious at the time but it might be obvious later; I'm willing to acknowledge different opinions on that are possible.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> Stating it doesn't need to be your character isn't really much of a counterpoint is it?



It was not a counterpoint, it was a clarification of my position.  I'm trying to be as explicit as possible so there's no mistaking what that position is.  I wanted to make sure that I did not associate agency with action declaration of a specific character.


> Are you wanting me to repeat myself about it needing to be your character and get into an arguing match?



You can respond however you'd like, but I'd suggest that you'll get more out of the discussion if you don't leap to conclusions about my intent.


EDIT: wow, I really murdered those tags.  Fixed.


----------



## FrogReaver

pretty sure our conversation was over before it started.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> Obviously a bad GM can eliminate agency in a large number of ways. My point is (and I think has been, pretty consistently) that "The GM Decides" does not inherently remove agency--especially not if, as you say, the GM limits fiat decisions to cases where it's obvious--I'm kinda willing to allow obvious in retrospect, here, because it might not be obvious at the time but it might be obvious later; I'm willing to acknowledge different opinions on that are possible.



No, GM decides doesn't inherently remove agency, I agree 100%.  Again, though, that wasn't the example I was responding to.  I fully believe GM decides doesn't prevent agency.  I think it's much more likely to negate agency in doses, and much more likely to be abused.  But, that doesn't mean you can't approach it from a principled standpoint and have a great game with enough agency for the participants to be happy.  Not everyone will like that flavor of agency, and that's okay.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> pretty sure our conversation was over before it started.



Happy gaming!


----------



## Campbell

prabe said:


> Obviously a bad GM can eliminate agency in a large number of ways. My point is (and I think has been, pretty consistently) that "The GM Decides" does not inherently remove agency--especially not if, as you say, the GM limits fiat decisions to cases where it's obvious--I'm kinda willing to allow obvious in retrospect, here, because it might not be obvious at the time but it might be obvious later; I'm willing to acknowledge different opinions on that are possible.




I agree with this. If it is based on honest consideration of the fiction and players can expect it to be all the time there is no issue. There are plenty of other reasons to go to the rules. It is just not necessarily one of agency.

I do think there is something to be said here for removing temptations or making it obvious when the GM intercedes in the way Blades does.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Campbell said:


> I agree with this. If it is based on honest consideration of the fiction and players can expect it to be all the time there is no issue. There are plenty of other reasons to go to the rules. It is just not necessarily one of agency.
> 
> I do think there is something to be said here for removing temptations or making it obvious when the GM intercedes in the way Blades does.



I think GM decides serves an opposing design goal to making GM intercession obvious (or removing temptations).  I say this because GM decide games put the vast majority of the work on the GM and little on the player.  This allows players to be much more casual while playing.  Blades, on the other hand, requires a great deal more from the players and so can constrain the GM more tightly.  I don't think you can get the ability to service casual players with a tightly constrained GM at the same time.  Or, at least, I haven't seen a system that does this.

To add clarity, that D&D supports casual players is not meant to suggest that _your _D&D game is full of casual players.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> I will explain why this doesn't compute for me. The dice are inscrutable; I have no way of knowing before I know the roll what the outcome will be. I might know the odds, and I might be able to alter them, but on a fundamental level I have no control over the outcome. The GM may or may not be as inscrutable as the dice; I might know the GM's tendencies, or I might not. I might be able to frame the attempted action in such a way that the GM will allow an auto-success, I might not be. I might have more control over the outcome if the GM is deciding than if I'm rolling a die.
> 
> I don't see any difference in agency, there.
> 
> Another thought: If a failure on a die roll doesn't remove/negate/falsify agency, neither does a failure because the attempted action is impossible. The method by which failure is derived doesn't change the fact that it's a failure, and failure doesn't seem to me to on its own remove/negate/falsify agency.




Let me ask you this.

Say you're a skilled Magic the Gathering player and you're playing a complex deck with lots of interactions that generally has a 40 % win rate (therefore 60 % loss rate) across the population distribution of games against a less complex deck that is fairly straight-forward deck.  However, extremely skilled deployment of your deck (and you're well toward the tail of the population distribution of skilled MtG players) can increase that win rate by up to 33 % (putting you, personally, a bit north of a 50 % win rate in the same scenario).

If, before play, someone is privy to (a) both deck archetypes being deployed (even though neither player is aware yet) and (b) the orthodox win/loss rate between these two decks AND that someone is vested with the authority to unilaterally decide that the less complex, higher win rate deck wins before initial hands are even drawn and a single card is played...

...do you find that there is no difference in both *actual *agency between that and actually playing it and *perceived *agency by the participants (especially the player of the complex deck)?

We've talked a lot about *actual *agency, but *perceived *agency is also enormously important (particularly as moments of play aggregate toward a narrative) in TTRPGs.



Secondarily, but related...

I think you're significantly underselling the agency-significance of all of the other aspects of system (and how they perpetuate agency) that go into the "roll the dice" portion of "say yes, or roll the dice" vs merely "GM decides."

There are many examples from enumerable systems, but lets just stick to Blades because that is one that a lot of commenters have some level of familiarity.

A Lurk (Rogue archetype) PC has the following:


Special Ability - Shadow:  Expend a use of your Special Armor to (a) Resist a Consequence from Detection or Security Measures or (b) Push yourself for a feat of Athletics or Stealth.
3 Dots in Prowess (the physical "saving throw" of Blades to resist consequences - so roll 3d when resisting a physical complication).
2 Dots in Prowl (so roll 2d when you traverse skillfully and quietly).
The Stress economy (including all of the agency in manipulating/leveraging/mitigating it...or not).
The ability to Push, accept a Devil's Bargain, deploy a Flashback and/or receive a Setup or Assist move from a Crew member if the fictional positioning warrants it.

They're on a Stealth Score that features 2 Competing Clocks.  If the Mission Clock is filled up before the "Sound the Alarm" Clock is filled up, they succeed at the Score.  If not, they may still succeed at the score, but their ability to do so becomes hugely threatened and the knock-on fallout accrued will threaten them for a while to come (more Heat which feeds back into the system, likely a Clock with a faction that has to be resolved in Downtime, other Complications that can emerge through play such as increased Stress, Trauma, Harm etc, etc).

At any point in the above scenario where the Lurk has the ability to (a) deploy Shadow to Push himself for a feat of Athletics (thereby not eating the stress for an extra 1d), now giving him 3d, is positioned to have an ally perform a Setup to change the Lurk's Position from Risky to Controlled (perhaps its a Whisper who manipulates the Ghost Field to distract a Sniper positioned in a Lookout tower in an overwatch position above the courtyard), and can then Resist any Consequence on a 4/5 or 1-3 result (now reduced due to the Setup move) with that beefy 3d from Prowess....OR they can use Shadow again (if they have another box of Special Armor) to resist it.

Or...they can deploy a Flashback.

And remember...all of this tech is player-facing so the GM doesn't get to hide DCs or procedures (which can allow them to use covert Force).

Is it really your position that the above scenario (which, again, I can use any number of player-facing systems for this), with all of the intricacies of its decision-tree and dice rolling, that said dice rolling is yields just as much/little agency/capriciousness/whim as an overwhelmingly GM-facing, GM-decides approach?


----------



## Manbearcat

Fenris-77 said:


> I think the very specific kind of agency present in Delve play probably isn't the common usage of 'agency' although I completely agree with your reading of Torchbearer and Blades. Common parlance, IMO, is pretty firmly in the "create dramatic narrative" camp when it comes to discussions of agency.
> 
> Also, I probably should have been specific about my post in reply to @forgreaver above, that's all contextual to within D&D. Sorry 'bout that.
> 
> Here's a good question -  what is it, exactly, that we thing D&D does well from an agency standpoint?




It is a good question and I agree with @Ovinomancer 's answer.

I want to write a lot more about "Delve Agency" and "addition by subtraction (or constraint)", but I don't have the time to coherently port my thoughts to a post right now so I'll try to do so in the coming days.


----------



## S'mon

Ovinomancer said:


> It appears the first mention was by @S'mon in post 1121 (ctrl-f is useful).  He didn't really define the term, so I can't tell what he meant by it.




I meant the character within the fiction/fictional world having agency. Same way Pemerton used character agency. For some reason you "don't recognise" this concept, of fictional characters having fictional agency, but that's all I meant.

I'd say player agency was player ability to exert change in the world-state. I would NOT necessarily say that players always have agency when PCs are in combat - if the GM fudges to ensure the combat ends in PC victory or defeat, the players are deprived of agency. Following a linear path _when required to do so _does not give players any agency, even if the world state at the end of the path is very different from the world state at the beginning of the path. OTOH, players certainly don't need control of the metagame as in story-games in order to have player agency.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Manbearcat said:


> Let me ask you this.
> 
> Say you're a skilled Magic the Gathering player and you're playing a complex deck with lots of interactions that generally has a 40 % win rate (therefore 60 % loss rate) across the population distribution of games against a less complex deck that is fairly straight-forward deck.  However, extremely skilled deployment of your deck (and you're well toward the tail of the population distribution of skilled MtG players) can increase that win rate by up to 33 % (putting you, personally, a bit north of a 50 % win rate in the same scenario).
> 
> If, before play, someone is privy to (a) both deck archetypes being deployed (even though neither player is aware yet) and (b) the orthodox win/loss rate between these two decks AND that someone is vested with the authority to unilaterally decide that the less complex, higher win rate deck wins before initial hands are even drawn and a single card is played...
> 
> ...do you find that there is no difference in both *actual *agency between that and actually playing it and *perceived *agency by the participants (especially the player of the complex deck)?
> 
> We've talked a lot about *actual *agency, but *perceived *agency is also enormously important (particularly as moments of play aggregate toward a narrative) in TTRPGs.
> 
> 
> 
> Secondarily, but related...
> 
> I think you're significantly underselling the agency-significance of all of the other aspects of system (and how they perpetuate agency) that go into the "roll the dice" portion of "say yes, or roll the dice" vs merely "GM decides."
> 
> There are many examples from enumerable systems, but lets just stick to Blades because that is one that a lot of commenters have some level of familiarity.
> 
> A Lurk (Rogue archetype) PC has the following:
> 
> 
> Special Ability - Shadow:  Expend a use of your Special Armor to (a) Resist a Consequence from Detection or Security Measures or (b) Push yourself for a feat of Athletics or Stealth.
> 3 Dots in Prowess (the physical "saving throw" of Blades to resist consequences - so roll 3d when resisting a physical complication).
> 2 Dots in Prowl (so roll 2d when you traverse skillfully and quietly).
> The Stress economy (including all of the agency in manipulating/leveraging/mitigating it...or not).
> The ability to Push, accept a Devil's Bargain, deploy a Flashback and/or receive a Setup or Assist move from a Crew member if the fictional positioning warrants it.
> 
> They're on a Stealth Score that features 2 Competing Clocks.  If the Mission Clock is filled up before the "Sound the Alarm" Clock is filled up, they succeed at the Score.  If not, they may still succeed at the score, but their ability to do so becomes hugely threatened and the knock-on fallout accrued will threaten them for a while to come (more Heat which feeds back into the system, likely a Clock with a faction that has to be resolved in Downtime, other Complications that can emerge through play such as increased Stress, Trauma, Harm etc, etc).
> 
> At any point in the above scenario where the Lurk has the ability to (a) deploy Shadow to Push himself for a feat of Athletics (thereby not eating the stress for an extra 1d), now giving him 3d, is positioned to have an ally perform a Setup to change the Lurk's Position from Risky to Controlled (perhaps its a Whisper who manipulates the Ghost Field to distract a Sniper positioned in a Lookout tower in an overwatch position above the courtyard), and can then Resist any Consequence on a 4/5 or 1-3 result (now reduced due to the Setup move) with that beefy 3d from Prowess....OR they can use Shadow again (if they have another box of Special Armor) to resist it.
> 
> Or...they can deploy a Flashback.
> 
> And remember...all of this tech is player-facing so the GM doesn't get to hide DCs or procedures (which can allow them to use covert Force).
> 
> Is it really your position that the above scenario (which, again, I can use any number of player-facing systems for this), with all of the intricacies of its decision-tree and dice rolling, that said dice rolling is yields just as much/little agency/capriciousness/whim as an overwhelmingly GM-facing, GM-decides approach?



I'm struggling with this.  I think that it's framed in a way that really highlights Blades' strengths against a caricature of GM decides.  The focus on decision mechanic hides a few things.  I still thinking through this, so the below is not going to be tight and it'll be muddy as I puzzle through it.  I might end up not agreeing with myself.  But, I think that my opening statement has some merit and I'm going to go look for it.

The Blades player has less authority over their character, and so has less agency in manipulating the state of the character for which they're supposed to be advocating.  This is a contrast worth noting.  As a GM in Blades, I can essentially declare and enforce actions for your character if the mechanic is a hard fail (and a bit on a success with complication) and still be in the lanes -- this wouldn't be degenerate play.  Doing so in a GM decides game is degenerate, because PCs are hands off outside of fixed mechanics.  In GM decides, I'd have more authority over character action inputs.

Yes, there's more player input and control and therefore agency in the action resolution mechanics, but much less agency for the GM.  This might, at first blush, appear to be good for the player, but it concurrently places a great deal more responsibility on the player.  In Blades, that responsibility is further constrained by the requirements to lean into the game and to risk the very concept of your character.  That framework puts a lot on the player and does act to constrain their authority in ways a that don't happen in a GM decides game.  The price of the clearly agency in resolution is an increased cost in player effort and risk to the character.  To put this another way, the player is pretty much required to play aggressively in Blades, to put their character at risk in often crazy ways, and to share some control over that character in a way that might radically alter the PC.  These are all limits on agency that don't exist in a D&D game.

Lastly, the nature of the resolution engine in Blades means something always happens.  Any action that invokes the mechanics will always alter the fictional state in a definitive way.  This means that other players, when exercising their agency, impinge on yours to a greater degree.  This is present in GM decides game, sure, but usually not to the same degree and certainly not as often.  The danger snowball effect in Blades means that players are always trying to impose agency on a shifting and chaotic scene.  In GM decides games, this is much less common, and the feeling of control and agency is increased (provided fair GM).  This is mixing actual agency with perceived agency a bit, but I think both are impacted.

In summation, I agree that the player-facing nature of Blades is very clear who has authority and therefore increases agency.  But, this isn't free.  You don't build that kind of resolution mechanic without a cost somewhere.  And that somewhere is the limitation of the player's agency over their character and the additional overhead the player takes on to play the game in a narrow way.  I love Blades, precisely because I love it's laser focus.  The system is adaptable to other genres, but that laser focus remains.  Every attempt I've seen to broader that focus using the PbtD tech has muddied up the system in ways that lose that mechanical perfection (I looked for awhile for a way to get a D&D/Blades hybrid -- doesn't work).


----------



## Ovinomancer

S'mon said:


> I meant the character within the fiction/fictional world having agency. Same way Pemerton used character agency. For some reason you "don't recognise" this concept, of fictional characters having fictional agency, but that's all I meant.
> 
> I'd say player agency was player ability to exert change in the world-state. I would NOT necessarily say that players always have agency when PCs are in combat - if the GM fudges to ensure the combat ends in PC victory or defeat, the players are deprived of agency. Following a linear path _when required to do so _does not give players any agency, even if the world state at the end of the path is very different from the world state at the beginning of the path. OTOH, players certainly don't need control of the metagame as in story-games in order to have player agency.



Thanks for the clarification.  I do, indeed, think character agency doesn't exist, although I made that case the page before I tagged you, so if you were reading around the tag, you might have missed it.  It's pretty simple.  Characters are fictional creations.  Fiction cannot choose.  Choice is a key foundation of agency.  Therefore, if you cannot choose, you cannot have agency and character agency doesn't exist.

That said, I like your second paragraph.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> Let me ask you this.
> 
> Say you're a skilled Magic the Gathering player and you're playing a complex deck with lots of interactions that generally has a 40 % win rate (therefore 60 % loss rate) across the population distribution of games against a less complex deck that is fairly straight-forward deck.  However, extremely skilled deployment of your deck (and you're well toward the tail of the population distribution of skilled MtG players) can increase that win rate by up to 33 % (putting you, personally, a bit north of a 50 % win rate in the same scenario).
> 
> If, before play, someone is privy to (a) both deck archetypes being deployed (even though neither player is aware yet) and (b) the orthodox win/loss rate between these two decks AND that someone is vested with the authority to unilaterally decide that the less complex, higher win rate deck wins before initial hands are even drawn and a single card is played...
> 
> ...do you find that there is no difference in both *actual *agency between that and actually playing it and *perceived *agency by the participants (especially the player of the complex deck)?
> 
> We've talked a lot about *actual *agency, but *perceived *agency is also enormously important (particularly as moments of play aggregate toward a narrative) in TTRPGs.




So, leaving aside the fact that I'm not a skilled Magic player--I never learned how to draw the right cards ... ;-)

In baseball (and sports in general) there's a saying: "That's why they play the games." It usually comes up in broadcasts when there's an upset--especially if said upset involves unlikely on-field events. It seems apt here.

What you're describing sounds like the win-probability analysis that I see in baseball (and that so often seems to be wrong, but that's less relevant, and probably comes down to my shrinkology and not the models). It would be a shame if baseball (or any other sport) resorted to using those instead of playing the games, because of all the chaotic interactions; OTOH, if they knew that was how wins would be determined they could plan for that and build for it. This isn't entirely unlike knowing your GM as a player, and knowing how they're likely to rule.

In TRPG play, what you're describing isn't quite what I'm describing, or what I think @Campbell was describing. We're talking about the GM deciding the outcome isn't in doubt, which in the win-probability world would mean a win probability that was exactly 100% or 0%. That said, I won't deny that not being allowed to roll might diminish the perception of agency, especially if the result was negative. (While the GM deciding on success might do just as much to reduce actual agency, I suspect most players would be less likely to complain.)



Manbearcat said:


> I think you're significantly underselling the agency-significance of all of the other aspects of system (and how they perpetuate agency) that go into the "roll the dice" portion of "say yes, or roll the dice" vs merely "GM decides."
> 
> There are many examples from enumerable systems, but lets just stick to Blades because that is one that a lot of commenters have some level of familiarity.
> 
> {snipping description of Blades in the Dark, which I really wanted to like but really didn't}
> 
> Is it really your position that the above scenario (which, again, I can use any number of player-facing systems for this), with all of the intricacies of its decision-tree and dice rolling, that said dice rolling is yields just as much/little agency/capriciousness/whim as an overwhelmingly GM-facing, GM-decides approach?




You haven't seen my dice at work.

To answer your question more seriously, I think what you're describing shows that the player in Blades in the Dark has many explicit ways to shape the odds--what seems to me like adjusting the fictional framing, though I may be misunderstanding what you and/or others have meant by that. In a system that is entirely GM Decides, any of that would have to be through persuasion of the GM. This is less mechanical and less guided by rule, but it's there. I mean, people play diceless systems and don't complain there's no agency there (at least, that I know of--the closest I think I've come is a session or two of Prime Time Adventures, which looking back I don't remember dice being involved, but it was more than ten years ago and my memory is foggy).

My position would be that a player in a D&D 5E game that I was running, playing a rogue trying to do something analogous would have other characters to provide buffs (same as the Lurk), would have similar freedom in describing their actions, and would have good knowledge of the odds (because at my table Proficiency lets you know the DC of an Ability Check before you roll); they wouldn't have the ability to hurt themselves to improve the odds (the Stress economy), but they might be able to describe their actions so that they have Advantage on a relevant roll, and they might have the Lucky Feat or some other mechanic that gives them the specific ability to reroll bad rolls. So my position is that the player at my D&D 5E table would have a similar amount of agency--and the only thing I can think of that is explicitly GM-side there is setting DCs for rolls. The only difference in capriciousness I see is that a d20 is swingier than a d6.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> The Blades player has less authority over their character, and so has less agency in manipulating the state of the character for which they're supposed to be advocating.  This is a contrast worth noting.  As a GM in Blades, I can essentially declare and enforce actions for your character if the mechanic is a hard fail (and a bit on a success with complication) and still be in the lanes -- this wouldn't be degenerate play.  Doing so in a GM decides game is degenerate, because PCs are hands off outside of fixed mechanics.  In GM decides, I'd have more authority over character action inputs.
> 
> Yes, there's more player input and control and therefore agency in the action resolution mechanics, but much less agency for the GM.  This might, at first blush, appear to be good for the player, but it concurrently places a great deal more responsibility on the player.  In Blades, that responsibility is further constrained by the requirements to lean into the game and to risk the very concept of your character.  That framework puts a lot on the player and does act to constrain their authority in ways a that don't happen in a GM decides game.  The price of the clearly agency in resolution is an increased cost in player effort and risk to the character.  To put this another way, the player is pretty much required to play aggressively in Blades, to put their character at risk in often crazy ways, and to share some control over that character in a way that might radically alter the PC.  These are all limits on agency that don't exist in a D&D game.




I'm snipping and responding to this, because while I didn't really think about why I was reacting so negatively to BitD while I was reading the SRD, this seems likely to have been at the root of my distaste. I guess I don't feel as though the trade-off/s seemed worth it. I don't think this is because I am a lazy player--it felt more visceral than that. I mean, my first two thoughts as to how I'd probably play were to goldfish (do as little as possible) or to intentionally get my character killed; neither is exactly good play, and I know myself well enough to read those particular tea leaves and stay away from the game. I am genuinely happy that y'all who love BitD love it, but it's clearly really not for me.


----------



## FrozenNorth

FrogReaver said:


> I do agree that fictional characters don't actually have agency.  Then again nothing in fiction "actually" exists.  Your fictional knight, he has no sword because his sword doesn't actually exists any more than my fictional characters agency.  Hopefully the point there is clear.



Wait...am I in the Matrix?


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> I don't think that I'd say that a dice roll and the GM deciding are equally "outside of your control" as you suggest. With a dice roll, generally speaking, as a player I'm going to have some idea of my chances of success....certainly I'll know how good my character may be at a given task. For example, to kick in the door, my character has a high Strength and so it's reasonable he can do it. The GM will likely (hopefully) also share some details on the door that will help inform my decision. Ideally, he'd state what the DC of the check would be. And so on. So I can then as a player calculate my odds and the risk of failure, and can then proceed with the attempt or not. I'm making an informed decision.




These same details are also going to be shared with a player when the DM is going to make the full decision, though.  The player can calculate the odds and and make an informed decision on whether the attempt has a good chance to auto succeed or auto fail.  If making an informed decision gives agency to the player, then that agency is present when the player makes an informed decision to attempt something that he knows is very likely to be impossible, but is making the desperate attempt anyway and the DM says no.



> If the GM decides, then I likely have a less clear idea of my chances. That may not be the case....I may still have a good idea of my chances because the GM has told me the door is made of flimsy wood and does no appear to be barred from the other side, and he's hopefully going to factor in my high Strength score and so on. If so, great. This is much more simple with certain actions than others, and the door kicking example is an easy one for sure.
> 
> Imagine a more complex action declaration, maybe of the sort offered in the OP.....a PC insulting a NPC. Now, we don't know exactly what the intent of the insult was in the OP, but let's imagine it had a purpose. Let's treat it as an intimidate check trying to convince the baron to negotiate with the PCs by letting them know if he doesn't, they're not fond of him and may act against him.
> 
> In such an example under the GM decides method, I may have no real sense for chance of success or consequence of failure or anything else. It's a much less informed decision. The GM can choose to narrate a result that I may not have thought was on the table.




If you're walking into a meeting with a despot that you know acts in this manner, "Going into the meeting,* they knew the ruler was unstable and severely punished any dissent in his land - having heard from various NPCs and seeing it firsthand*.", you have the information to make an informed decision about whether or not you should make an attempt to dissent in his presence, and that the consequences will be severe.  And, since you heard stories about what he has done from "various NPCs" who saw it first hand,  you have an idea of what those consequences will be.  



> Earlier in the thread, many people said that the DM controls when the mechanics get invoked. The DM decides if a declared action is outright successful, or if a roll is needed to determine success, or if the action is outright impossible. This gives the DM all authority on when the dice are rolled. Yes, we would expect and hope that the DM would use this authority in good faith and with principles guiding him in some way. But these factors are going to vary much more than game mechanics, no?




I wouldn't think all that much.  The rules are very clear that the DM calls for a roll when the outcome of an action is uncertain and has a meaningful outcome.  The rest of the time the DM will say yes or no. And while the DM is empowered to ignore the rules, it would be in bad faith to do so in a manner that goes against the spirit of the rules.  The DM should only go against the rules when there is a good reason to do so.  When I do that, I explain my thinking to the players as I do it.

The players can reasonably rely on the DM only deciding when something will clearly succeed or clearly fail, even if the success or failure is due to something the players are unaware of, which occasionally happens.



> If you're playing with the same group you have been for some time, you may have a very strong sense of how your DM may judge these things. And that's great. I'm lucky enough for that to be the case for me and my group. But even still, at times conflict still comes up. No one is going to be 100% consistent. And no two people are going to agree on what 100% consistent may mean.
> 
> Now, if you are playing with a group that is new to you.....you have far less past experience to guide you here, so it becomes even less clear. How can you say what your expectations should be under this system? It's a much bigger gray area.
> 
> So, although yes, shooting down every idea is bad faith play and I doubt such a DM would keep a game together, but it doesn't require bad faith play for there to be less player agency under such a system. The DM could be doing everything that he thinks is right, and another DM could also be doing everything he thinks is right, and you can have two different ways it plays out.




Less clear still equals a very good chance to read things correctly, though, so long as the DM is describing things the way he should be. If the DM is giving poor descriptions then there will be issues, but those issues will affect new and old players.



> I don't really agree with your number 2, and therefore your conclusion 3. Doesn't that render the idea of player agency moot? When is there not player agency in such a broad application?




No it's not moot, and broad doesn't take away meaning.  Think of how often you're near earth in your daily life.  I'd wager for probably 99% or more of your life there is earth near you.  That broad presence doesn't take away meaning from the word earth or what earth means.  It just means that the vast majority of the time, earth is present.

It's the same with player agency.  Since my PC is shaping the fiction with the vast majority of both his successful and his failed attempts, agency is present.  I can make an informed decision and shape the fiction with my actions whether I succeed or not.  And if we add "informed" into the mix of what grants agency, then even an answer of no from the DM will still result in agency, still the player made an informed decision, decided to make the desperate attempt, and through that attempt shaped the fiction into something new.

You can have greater and lesser amounts of agency depending on the system, but a DM acting in good faith results in agency almost without fail, regardless of system.  I doubt there's a RPG system out there that is designed so that there is no player agency.




> Also, the bit about players "having full control over how their character will shape the fiction through both successes and failure"; I don't think this exists in D&D, in many cases. The player doesn't decide that when he fails to kick down the door, he breaks his foot, or he makes such a ruckus that it attracts a wandering monster, or any other result of the failure. The DM decides that.




I disagree.  First, the player isn't going to break his foot unless the player is playing in a game with critical fumbles, in which case he is making an informed decision to kick down the door knowing that if he rolls a 1, his foot could break.  Second, even a brand new player should be able to realize that kicking a door is going to make a lot of noise and could be heard, success or failure.  So he's making an informed decision to make a ton of noise, too, unless makes the informed decision to use a silence spell first and not make noise.



> Are you saying that player agency is only taken away if control of a character is taken from them?




That or bad faith DMing where the DM says no inappropriately.  Though I guess that could be viewed as a form of losing control of the character.



> If so, does this apply to such in game effects as Charm and Dominate Person?




Sure, but an in fiction method of taking away player agency is perfectly acceptable.  It's going to be limited in duration.


----------



## FrozenNorth

Maxperson said:


> I wouldn't think all that much.  The rules are very clear that the DM calls for a roll when the outcome of an action is uncertain and has a meaningful outcome.



(Off-topic) In my games, “meaningful outcome” includes “a success or a failure would be interesting to the table even if it doesn’t advance the adventure” (such as the Barbarian succeeding on an untrained Performance check to dance at the cotillion).


----------



## Campbell

Years ago John Harper posted about what make a character a good fit for a game he was designing at the time. I think it is a pretty good stand in for character focused play, I will have more on this later, but I think it is instructive towards the impact scenario and character design can have on agency.



			
				 John Harper said:
			
		

> What makes a fit character for this game? The Four Cs.
> 
> *Connected:* The character has relationships (positive and negative) with other significant characters in the situation.
> 
> *Committed*: The character has a stake in the outcome of the situation, and will stay to see it through.
> 
> *Capable:* The character has the capacity to affect change in the situation by taking decisive action.
> 
> *Conflicted:* The character has beliefs and goals that are in conflict. They must make choices about which are more important, and which must be abandoned or changed.


----------



## Baron Opal II

I can agree with the essence of those, although I might quibble on some details.


----------



## pemerton

I read a post by @Ovinomancer about differing degrees of agency across sytems.

I have several active campaigns in my group. Classic Traveller gives players less agency than (say) Burning Wheel. This is because Traveller relies heavily on random determination to establish framing; and it has no system for the players to intervene and influence dice rolls. That doesn't mean the GM has more agency, because the GM is also bound by those random rolls!


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> I don't appear to have explained it adequately.
> 
> Spells are actions, something the player declares the character is doing. One acquires spells by finding them--either in captured spellbooks or on scrolls--or by random chance--the spells one acquires at a new level. One has a set number of spells one can prepare and cast, as a feature of one's class level (in the case of _passwall_ it looks as though that class would have to be Magic-User). Once one has cast a prepared spell it's no longer available (barring preparing it more than once). Casting a spell takes some amount of segments or rounds (or longer in some instances), and the effects are clearly defined--_passwall_ has specific effects, which are different from _phantasmal force_, which are different from _alter reality_.
> 
> Using a Hero Point in Mutants and Masterminds (or using the similar rules in Fate, whereby one can use a Fate Point to "Declare a Detail") is a thing the player is explicitly doing as the player; it's not an action they're declaring their character as doing. They are much more limited a resource than spells are in AD&D--the default in Mutants and Masterminds is one Hero Point; the default number in Fate Core is three Fate points. Using a Hero Point in this way (as a subset of "Inspiration) in Mutants and Masterminds is described in the rules as "intended to give the players more input into the story and allow their heroes chances to succeed"; using a Fate Point this way (as "Declaring a Detail") is described in the rules thus: "Sometimes you want to add a detail that works to your character's advantage." Note that both rules are explicit that it's the player doing it, not the character. Hero Points in Mutants and Masterminds are acquired when a character undergoes a "Setback" (defined as a failed check with the worst possible result) or a "Complication"(which are described as "essentually setbacks the players choose for their heroes in advance" with examples given as Accident, Addiction, Enemy, Fame, Hatred, Honor, Obsession, Phobia, Prejudice, Reputation, Responsibility, Rivalry, Secret, and Temper. One can also earn Hero Points for suitably heroic acts or particularly good roleplaying (at the GM's description). In Fate, the primary way of acquiring Fate Points is by accepting Compels from the GM.
> 
> Does that help clear things up?



There was nothing inadequate about your explanation. In this more recent post you point out that _casting a spell _is a thing a character does in the fiction; whereas _spending a fate/hero point_ does not. But the event that the expenditure engenders typically will correspond to something in the fiction: eg if I spend a fate/hero point so my PC can pull a handy skeleton key out of his/her toolbox, or can notice a chandelier to swing on, that does correlate to an event in the fiction.

More generally, both casting a spell and spending a fate point let the player change the fiction, often in identical ways. Hence my post that I don't understand all this talk about _players editing scenes_. We just seem to be talking about players affecting the fiction.



prabe said:


> I don't see any deep fundamental difference between the procedure you describe and the one I describe



I described a procedure in which, first, genre and ficitonal positioning and the like are assessed to see if an action declaration is permissible in the context, and then - if it is - the GM decides whether or not to say yes or call for a dice roll. Distinguishing those two steps is quite important, because the role of players and GM in respect of each of them is quite different.



prabe said:


> You share some of the curation/decision-making around the table, which almost certainly works at your table, for the games you play, the way you run them. Because I have in the past had a hard time with coherence when I did that, I don't. It's a preference, and I am not convinced your approach is objectively wrong--just wrong for me.



OK. I don't see, though, how you can assert that these different approaches are irrelevant to the question of who is exercising agency in repsect of the shared fiction.



prabe said:


> I believe that fiction emerges from play; that may sound to you as though I believe it to be self-actualizing (sorry for the American spelling, there). I do believe that established facts in the fiction do exert causal power--I suspect that you do, too.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In the instance of tugboats we have concensus reality to fall back on--the real-world capabilities of tugboats are easily researched, though converting those to game mechanics may take some work. In the instance of setting-elements in a game world, we have published materials if we're running those; we have the GM's notes if it's a homebrew adventure; we have common sense (or an unreasonable facsimile thereof) if something is not covered in the notes or published material--the GM exercises judgment (possibly in consultation with the table, the way you describe your tables at least sometimes operating, which I'll say again isn't something I'm trying to argue against).



Again, I say: how can this all be irrelevant to player agency.

If the question of whether or not an action declaration is permissible - in the sense of being eligible to proceed to resolutoin by way of "say 'yes' or roll the dice" - depends on the GM's notes, and the GM's common sense, and the GM's inferences drawn from research, then the players' agency is clearly being subordinated to that of the GM.

That may be good. It may be bad. I don't see how it can be denied.



prabe said:


> If player agency (in either the definition you've been using or in mine, I think) is about changing the fictional state, it must be defined before it can be change; that's what notes and prep and GM judgment (and real-world knowledge) are for. Without a fictional state to change, there is nothing to choose, there is nothing to change, and there can be no player agency.



From this it follows that the AD&D game I played - in which no actions could affect the fiction unless they conformed to the GM's planning and expectations - was one with unconstrained player agency. I mean, when the NPCs knew nothing and could provide no help, that was because the fiction contained only ignorant and useless NPCs!

Obviously that's an absurd conclusion. Which therefore shows that something has gone wrong with the premises. And what has gone wrong is the premise that player agency over the shared ficiton is not affected by the way the GM makes decisions about whether or not action declarations are able to have a chance of success.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> I will explain why this doesn't compute for me. The dice are inscrutable; I have no way of knowing before I know the roll what the outcome will be. I might know the odds, and I might be able to alter them, but on a fundamental level I have no control over the outcome. The GM may or may not be as inscrutable as the dice; I might know the GM's tendencies, or I might not. I might be able to frame the attempted action in such a way that the GM will allow an auto-success, I might not be. I might have more control over the outcome if the GM is deciding than if I'm rolling a die.
> 
> I don't see any difference in agency, there.
> 
> Another thought: If a failure on a die roll doesn't remove/negate/falsify agency, neither does a failure because the attempted action is impossible. The method by which failure is derived doesn't change the fact that it's a failure, and failure doesn't seem to me to on its own remove/negate/falsify agency.





FrogReaver said:


> Saying that the DM deciding failure has removed player agency is no different than saying a dice coming up failure has removed player agency.



Two cricket teams are having to decide who fields first. Here's one way: the home side captain decides.

Here's another way: a coin is tossed, and the winner of the toss decides whether that team fields first or bats first.

The second is the way it's actually done. I don't think any cricket players or cricket fans would think that changing to the first way would not make a difference.

A GM deciding that an action fails automatically is preventing the player from changing the fiction in a way that the player cares about (given s/he declared the action for his/her PC).

A GM declining to "say 'yes'" to a declared action and therefore funnelling it into the action resolution mechanics is allowing the dice to determine whether the fiction changes as the player wants it to, or whether it changes in some other way more adverse to the PC.

The first looks like a unilateral decision about the fiction. The second looks like the playing of a game in which the participants are able, via the mechanical frameworks, to change the fiction in varous ways. The idea that they are not different in respect of _the capacity of various participants to influence the fiction _is simply not credible.

Another way to come at the same point: if the GM gets to decide everything, player input is mere suggestion. It's like a monarch and his/her courtiers and advisors. In a structure of "say 'yes' or roll the dice" either the players get their way or the issue is rolled for. Rolling (or lottery, or other randomisation) as an unbiased decision procedure, which distributes the possibility of winning the issue over multiple participants and hence respects the agency of all of them, has a long history. Applied repeatedly - as happens in RPGIng - it is a way of integrating various participants' contributions into the unfolding shared project.

I'm baffled that this is the least bit contentious.



FrogReaver said:


> If you cannot announce your characters action then you have no agency over your character.  That is a very important point.



But this isn't even true. For instance, in Burning Wheel my character might be unconscious, and hence not in any literal sense taking actions, but I might be able to make a Circles check to see if an acquaintance, having heard of my plight, comes to rescue me.

BW is not the only game in which player moves are confined to the character's locus of control, but that locus of control is not only geographic but charismatic. Even in AD&D if my character is unconscious but I have a henchman in the neighbourhood then I can call for a Loyalty check to see if my henchman tries to help me rather than run away. A GM who declined to make that check would not be running things in the spirit of the game - given that NPCs have a loyalty rating that is affected by PC CHA and that there is a bundle of subystems intended to give effect to that PC ability, and that even have modifiers that apply if the PC is hors de combat or dead.

The focus on the character is just a distracting way of trying to approach the actual question, which is _can the player meaningfully affect and change the shared fiction?_


----------



## pemerton

S'mon said:


> players certainly don't need control of the metagame as in story-games in order to have player agency.



Absolutely. I'm not a big fan of the "story game" label, but in Classic Traveller players can enjoy and exercise agency although that game has almost no metagame mechanics (in the sense of mechanics that allow players to establish elements of the fiction that don't correspond to their PCs creating or bringing about those elements of the fiction).

Prince Valiant has a lot of player agency although very little metagame mechanics. (Storyteller Certificates are not generally metagame; they're just autowins.)


----------



## pemerton

Maxperson said:


> If you're walking into a meeting with a despot that you know acts in this manner, "Going into the meeting,* they knew the ruler was unstable and severely punished any dissent in his land - having heard from various NPCs and seeing it firsthand*.", you have the information to make an informed decision about whether or not you should make an attempt to dissent in his presence, and that the consequences will be severe.  And, since you heard stories about what he has done from "various NPCs" who saw it first hand,  you have an idea of what those consequences will be.



This is a framework for puzzle-solving.

I don't mind doing the odd crossword or sudoku. These are ways of demonstrating a certain sort of cleverness. But they don't demonstrate a whole lot of agency.

In the RPGIng context, much the same is true.

Contrast that with @Campbell's OSR-ish emphasis on _cleverly leveraging the fiction_. Now that's agency - it's doing something that actually impacts the shared fiction. What would the analogue of that be for the despot? The players would eg know that he has a fondness for rabbits - and so now they can try and find some and bring them to him. Where was that in the framing of the OP's situation? If anyone's spelled it out I missed it. If the only information we have on the mad despot is _what will shut things down_ rather than _what will open things up_ then where is the scope for the exercise of agency?


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> These same details are also going to be shared with a player when the DM is going to make the full decision, though.  The player can calculate the odds and and make an informed decision on whether the attempt has a good chance to auto succeed or auto fail.  If making an informed decision gives agency to the player, then that agency is present when the player makes an informed decision to attempt something that he knows is very likely to be impossible, but is making the desperate attempt anyway and the DM says no.




I think that when you say "are also going to be shared" what you really should be saying is "may also be shared". And although I agree that a player may have a good idea of odds based on the DM sharing details and also based on familiarity with the DM and his/her style.....I said as much in my post.....I don't think it's the same. One is a case of math. The other is determining someone's opinion, someone who may or may not share their reasoning for that opinion. 

Many DMs on these boards have said they often don't share DCs with their players. That alone can create a huge gray area. Factor in other uncertain elements, and the gray area simply grows. 




Maxperson said:


> If you're walking into a meeting with a despot that you know acts in this manner, "Going into the meeting,* they knew the ruler was unstable and severely punished any dissent in his land - having heard from various NPCs and seeing it firsthand*.", you have the information to make an informed decision about whether or not you should make an attempt to dissent in his presence, and that the consequences will be severe.  And, since you heard stories about what he has done from "various NPCs" who saw it first hand,  you have an idea of what those consequences will be.




No, you really don't.

You know he is unstable and does not like dissent. You also know he's used to bossing around meek townsfolk. How will the Baron react when someone clearly more powerful than he....an outsider unconcerned with his influence, and capable of toppling his little regime....shows up and insults him? Certainly these are different circumstances. And that's to say nothing of the fact that moments before, two other party members were negotiating with him amicably. 

There are any number of ways for the DM to adjudicate here. You do not have a clear picture at all. Especially since you are only operating on the information that the DM has chosen to share with you, and he may have been able to share more. 

From the player perspective, the baron is an obstacle to be overcome, right? Let's compare this with something that D&D is more specific about. Let's say the party is hearing about a dragon in the area....and how "its hide is made of impenetrable plates that protect it from all attacks!" This is likely an indication to the players that the dragon has a high AC. Is it an indication to them that if they attack it, they will be unable to hurt it? 

Is the Baron's dislike of disobedience a challenge to the PCs to overcome? Or simply an indication that they must try another means? Which is it? How will players know? Because when townsfolk get out of line, he throws them in the stocks?

Let's look at another scenario.....what if Strahd arrived in the Baron's hall and insulted him? Would the Baron cry "Guards!" with the intent of seizing the Count and placing him in the stocks? Or should the DM take into consideration that Strahd is far different from the humble folk that populate Vallaki?



Maxperson said:


> I wouldn't think all that much.  The rules are very clear that the DM calls for a roll when the outcome of an action is uncertain and has a meaningful outcome.  The rest of the time the DM will say yes or no. And while the DM is empowered to ignore the rules, it would be in bad faith to do so in a manner that goes against the spirit of the rules.  The DM should only go against the rules when there is a good reason to do so.  When I do that, I explain my thinking to the players as I do it.
> 
> The players can reasonably rely on the DM only deciding when something will clearly succeed or clearly fail, even if the success or failure is due to something the players are unaware of, which occasionally happens.




So the DM in the OP thought it made sense that the Baron would simply call for the guards because one PC insulted him. Is the DM's opinion that the Baron would do so good enough reason to ignore the rules? Is this bad faith play on the DM's part? 

And again, you say the "players can reasonably rely..." and I think it's more accurate to say that "the players may be able to rely....". "Can" implies certainty that is absent in this scenario. 




Maxperson said:


> Less clear still equals a very good chance to read things correctly, though, so long as the DM is describing things the way he should be. If the DM is giving poor descriptions then there will be issues, but those issues will affect new and old players.




The DM is responsible for what the players know about the world and the NPCs and everything else. Sometimes, players miss details or cues that they may need to be aware of. Sometimes, a DM may not be as clear with those as he thinks he's being. This stuff happens. 

"Less clear" by no means "equals a very good chance". It may be any amount within a pretty substantial range of understanding.



Maxperson said:


> No it's not moot, and broad doesn't take away meaning.  Think of how often you're near earth in your daily life.  I'd wager for probably 99% or more of your life there is earth near you.  That broad presence doesn't take away meaning from the word earth or what earth means.  It just means that the vast majority of the time, earth is present.




I fail to see the relevance of this point about how close I am to the earth. I was making a point about an overly broad description, not broad presence.



Maxperson said:


> It's the same with player agency.  Since my PC is shaping the fiction with the vast majority of both his successful and his failed attempts, agency is present.  I can make an informed decision and shape the fiction with my actions whether I succeed or not.  And if we add "informed" into the mix of what grants agency, then even an answer of no from the DM will still result in agency, still the player made an informed decision, decided to make the desperate attempt, and through that attempt shaped the fiction into something new.
> 
> You can have greater and lesser amounts of agency depending on the system, but a DM acting in good faith results in agency almost without fail, regardless of system.  I doubt there's a RPG system out there that is designed so that there is no player agency.




The DL series of modules is often cited as exactly that, isn't it? It's a pure railroad....you climb aboard and then it goes where it goes no matter what you do. 

I think that's an extreme example, but it's one that comes up a lot. And for the record, I don't think that D&D is generally played with no agency on the part of its participants. I simply believe that it can be played that way. And that it can be prone to unnecessary limits on player agency.




Maxperson said:


> I disagree.  First, the player isn't going to break his foot unless the player is playing in a game with critical fumbles, in which case he is making an informed decision to kick down the door knowing that if he rolls a 1, his foot could break.  Second, even a brand new player should be able to realize that kicking a door is going to make a lot of noise and could be heard, success or failure.  So he's making an informed decision to make a ton of noise, too, unless makes the informed decision to use a silence spell first and not make noise.




The PC may break his foot. The DM can decide that is the result of failure. Do the rules as written block this? The player doesn't get to dictate what a failure entials, the DM does. No house rules are needed for this to be the case, although I would say that it's out of the ordinary. It's rather more dynamic than what D&D typically allows in these circumstances, but I think it's supported by the rules.



Maxperson said:


> That or bad faith DMing where the DM says no inappropriately.  Though I guess that could be viewed as a form of losing control of the character.




I don't think that it takes "bad faith" DMing for the DM to say no inappropriately. The OP wasn't DMing in bad faith, but I think he very well could have gone another route with his decisions. He could have allowed the insult to cow the Baron, he could have simply applied a setback to whatever progress the negotiations had taken, he could have went to the dice to see how it played out. 




Maxperson said:


> Sure, but an in fiction method of taking away player agency is perfectly acceptable.  It's going to be limited in duration.




Well, yes, limits on player agency are absolutely acceptable, limited or otherwise.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> There was nothing inadequate about your explanation. In this more recent post you point out that _casting a spell _is a thing a character does in the fiction; whereas _spending a fate/hero point_ does not. But the event that the expenditure engenders typically will correspond to something in the fiction: eg if I spend a fate/hero point so my PC can pull a handy skeleton key out of his/her toolbox, or can notice a chandelier to swing on, that does correlate to an event in the fiction.
> 
> More generally, both casting a spell and spending a fate point let the player change the fiction, often in identical ways. Hence my post that I don't understand all this talk about _players editing scenes_. We just seem to be talking about players affecting the fiction.




It's clear you do get it when in a post just down thread you describe metagame mechanics thus:



pemerton said:


> (in the sense of mechanics that allow players to establish elements of the fiction that don't correspond to their PCs creating or bringing about those elements of the fiction).




So I don't understand why in your reply to me you are taking a position that they're the same thing. I would say these metagame mechanics give the player more agency by not requiring the change in the fiction to be something the character can accomplish--as you accurately describe.



pemerton said:


> I described a procedure in which, first, genre and ficitonal positioning and the like are assessed to see if an action declaration is permissible in the context, and then - if it is - the GM decides whether or not to say yes or call for a dice roll. Distinguishing those two steps is quite important, because the role of players and GM in respect of each of them is quite different.




So, in both procedures, as I understand them:

1) The player proposes an action for their character.
2) The GM decides if there will be a roll, incorporating into that decision things such as genre-fidelity, etablished fiction, positioning. (Note that "Say yes or roll the dice" still contains a decision point.)
3) The player rolls the dice or otherwise resolves the action.
4) The result is narrated, faithful to the result of the resolution. Who narrates may be per the rules, or not.

Any GM decision that didn't take into account context and genre and all-a-that would be bad-faith GMing, and probably bad GMing. A GM operating in bad faith can remove agency in many ways.



pemerton said:


> If the question of whether or not an action declaration is permissible - in the sense of being eligible to proceed to resolutoin by way of "say 'yes' or roll the dice" - depends on the GM's notes, and the GM's common sense, and the GM's inferences drawn from research, then the players' agency is clearly being subordinated to that of the GM.
> 
> That may be good. It may be bad. I don't see how it can be denied.




If we were playing a game set in the real world, and a player wanted their character to drive to Nome, Alaska from roughly anyplace else, I as GM would have to say they couldn't (unless that place was Teller, Alaska) because there literally are no roads that go there. I wouldn't say in that instance that the player's agency was being subordinated to the GM's--maybe you would, in which case we're further apart than I think we are. If we were playing a game set in a fictional published world, and a player wanted something similar--I'm honestly not familiar enough with published game settings to offer a specific example here--I wouldn't say it's the GM's agency that's being prioritized over the player's agency: I'd say it was something like faithfulness to the setting (you might describe it differently). The difference between that second example and a game like mine where I write my own setting is that large parts of the setting are in my head; I like to think I do a good job of conveying that setting to the players, but it's possible I'm wrong about that. If a player wants their character to do something impossible in the setting (say, walk from Mahassar to Kotima without lots of magic) they can't, and that doesn't feel to me as though I'm denying the player's agency there--again, you might disagree.



pemerton said:


> From this it follows that the AD&D game I played - in which no actions could affect the fiction unless they conformed to the GM's planning and expectations - was one with unconstrained player agency. I mean, when the NPCs knew nothing and could provide no help, that was because the fiction contained only ignorant and useless NPCs!
> 
> Obviously that's an absurd conclusion. Which therefore shows that something has gone wrong with the premises. And what has gone wrong is the premise that player agency over the shared ficiton is not affected by the way the GM makes decisions about whether or not action declarations are able to have a chance of success.




As I said before in this post--and at least once upthread--a GM operating in bad faith can deny player agency in many ways. In this case he seems to have been denying your ability to change the fiction, which seems pretty definitionally to be denying y'all agency. What you seem to me to be saying is that a GM operating in good-faith, making decisions about what can't work, what can't not work, and what needs to be determined, is denying the players their agency; if that is what you're saying, I disagree.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> Two cricket teams are having to decide who fields first. Here's one way: the home side captain decides.
> 
> Here's another way: a coin is tossed, and the winner of the toss decides whether that team fields first or bats first.
> 
> The second is the way it's actually done. I don't think any cricket players or cricket fans would think that changing to the first way would not make a difference.




Dunno how much difference it makes in cricket, but in baseball the home team bats second. There are slight advantages that come with that, but given that (in a normal season) every Major League team plays 162 games, half at home, they don't add much over the course of the season.



pemerton said:


> A GM deciding that an action fails automatically is preventing the player from changing the fiction in a way that the player cares about (given s/he declared the action for his/her PC).
> 
> A GM declining to "say 'yes'" to a declared action and therefore funnelling it into the action resolution mechanics is allowing the dice to determine whether the fiction changes as the player wants it to, or whether it changes in some other way more adverse to the PC.
> 
> The first looks like a unilateral decision about the fiction. The second looks like the playing of a game in which the participants are able, via the mechanical frameworks, to change the fiction in varous ways. The idea that they are not different in respect of _the capacity of various participants to influence the fiction _is simply not credible.




A GM saying yes is making a similarly unilateral decision. How much that changes the fiction is likely to result in how the success is honored and how it's narrated. This is how a GM operating in bad faith can allow PCs to "succeed" while still not allowing them to change the fiction. I have seen this with my own eyes, as a player.



pemerton said:


> The focus on the character is just a distracting way of trying to approach the actual question, which is _can the player meaningfully affect and change the shared fiction?_




And my answer is that the method of resolution doesn't matter. What matters is the good faith and/or flexibility of the GM.

Another part of my answer is that since the character is the means through which the player changes the fiction (most of the time--your example from Burning Wheel is an example of this not being true, as are metagame mechanics) it seems reasonable to focus on the character.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> This is a framework for puzzle-solving.




A puzzle is something to solve. When you are given the answer, there is no puzzle.



> Contrast that with @Campbell's OSR-ish emphasis on _cleverly leveraging the fiction_. Now that's agency - it's doing something that actually impacts the shared fiction. What would the analogue of that be for the despot? The players would eg know that he has a fondness for rabbits - and so now they can try and find some and bring them to him. *Where was that in the framing of the OP's situation?* If anyone's spelled it out I missed it. If the only information we have on the mad despot is _what will shut things down_ rather than _what will open things up_ then where is the scope for the exercise of agency?



It may have been there or it may not.  He didn't get into that level of detail.


----------



## FrogReaver

FrozenNorth said:


> Wait...am I in the Matrix?




nope.  Though going back and forth talking about fictional worlds and characters and the real world and players may have the tendency to make it sound as such.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> I think that when you say "are also going to be shared" what you really should be saying is "may also be shared". And although I agree that a player may have a good idea of odds based on the DM sharing details and also based on familiarity with the DM and his/her style.....I said as much in my post.....I don't think it's the same. One is a case of math. The other is determining someone's opinion, someone who may or may not share their reasoning for that opinion.




If a DM would share the details when in a situation where there is a roll, then he's also going to share the details when there isn't a roll. He's not suddenly going to stop the way he's DMing to hold back details.

And it's all math.  The range of possible outcomes is 0% to 100%.  All that remains is to calculate the odds.  It doesn't cease to be math when the odds of success hit 0% or 100%.



> No, you really don't.
> 
> You know he is unstable and does not like dissent. You also know he's used to bossing around meek townsfolk. How will the Baron react when someone clearly more powerful than he....an outsider unconcerned with his influence, and capable of toppling his little regime....shows up and insults him? Certainly these are different circumstances. And that's to say nothing of the fact that moments before, two other party members were negotiating with him amicably.




Maybe I missed it, but where was it said that 1) the PCs are more powerful than he and his guards are, and/or 2) that he knows they are more powerful?  



> From the player perspective, the baron is an obstacle to be overcome, right? Let's compare this with something that D&D is more specific about. Let's say the party is hearing about a dragon in the area....and how "its hide is made of impenetrable plates that protect it from all attacks!" This is likely an indication to the players that the dragon has a high AC. Is it an indication to them that if they attack it, they will be unable to hurt it?




Why would he have to be an obstacle to overcome?  Maybe he's just something to navigate through.  Overcome implies conflict that may or may not be there.  

If I were a player hearing about such a dragon, I'd ask more questions.  Such as, "Have other heroes armed with magic made the attempt?" and so on. The description is unusual and warrants more research. In 5e, such high armor classes don't exist and any dragon can be hurt on a roll of 20, so even a bunch of peasants with bows can hurt one, so this is clearly something odd.

Is the Baron's dislike of disobedience a challenge to the PCs to overcome? Or simply an indication that they must try another means? Which is it? How will players know? Because when townsfolk get out of line, he throws them in the stocks?



> Let's look at another scenario.....what if Strahd arrived in the Baron's hall and insulted him? Would the Baron cry "Guards!" with the intent of seizing the Count and placing him in the stocks? Or should the DM take into consideration that Strahd is far different from the humble folk that populate Vallaki?



Probably not.  The Baron would have heard about what Strahd does to people and would know not to insult him.



> The DM is responsible for what the players know about the world and the NPCs and everything else. Sometimes, players miss details or cues that they may need to be aware of. Sometimes, a DM may not be as clear with those as he thinks he's being. This stuff happens.




Sure.  Mistakes happen.  Regardless of system or agency. 



> "Less clear" by no means "equals a very good chance". It may be any amount within a pretty substantial range of understanding.




You seem to have ignored everything that came after that.  When you factor in the rest of what I said, "...*so long as the DM is describing things the way he should be.*" It will still equal a very good chance.  What you are describing is the sentence after that bolded sentence, "If the DM is giving poor descriptions then there will be issues, but those issues will affect new and old players." 



> I fail to see the relevance of this point about how close I am to the earth. I was making a point about an overly broad description, not broad presence.




It's the same thing with regard to scope.  Earth is almost always around you and it has meaning.  Player agency is almost always present, and it has meaning.  Being broad doesn't take away its meaning.



> The PC may break his foot. The DM can decide that is the result of failure. Do the rules as written block this?




Nope.  Nor do they allow it.  The DM has to change the game for something like this to happen, and the players would or at least should be aware of such changes.



> The player doesn't get to dictate what a failure entials, the DM does. No house rules are needed for this to be the case, although I would say that it's out of the ordinary. It's rather more dynamic than what D&D typically allows in these circumstances, but I think it's supported by the rules.




There would have to be a house rule present.  A broken foot is beyond the scope of simple narration of a failed attempt to kick down the door.


----------



## Campbell

*Programming Note*

I do not really like the use of "story game" outside of storytelling games like The Quiet Year, Follow, Fiasco, For The Queen and Icarus where the game is played without a GM and players are supposed to work together to bring the game to a satisfying narrative conclusion. These are *story advocacy* games (even in the case where you play a single character) so "story game" feels right.

For games like Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel, and Sorcerer if we must consider them a separate category instead of simply being called roleplaying games I would call them character focused or character driven roleplaying games. The primary differences are in reward structure, GM techniques, and the parts of the fiction they feel the need to model - they focus more on social dynamics and relationships than on physical confrontations. They are *character advocacy* games.

There is not a strong correlation between indie or character focused games and mechanics that are not directly correlated with the fiction. If anything mainstream games are more rather than less apt to implement these sorts of mechanics (usually as a patch over their resolution system). Inspiration and abstract martial abilities in Fifth Edition, Void Points in Legend of the Five Rings, Willpower in Storyteller, Destiny Points and strain FFG Star Wars, Hero Points in Pathfinder Second Edition, etc. There are very few mainstream games that do not utilize some kind of meta-currency or abstract limited use abilities.


----------



## Campbell

I think part of what is going on here is that some of us are associating "go to the dice" with games where the rules of the game tell us what happens. In 5th Edition except during combat and when a spell is involved the dice roll is nonbinding. In Fifth Edition the DM determines whether dice are rolled and what impact that has. This is different from even Pathfinder Second Edition which (taking some cues from Apocalypse World) lays out what success or failure mean and provides guidance on what DCs should look like for a given skill.

If I am trying to have my character intimidate a mad tyrant into doing something he does not want to do the game provides me with guidance on the sort of fictional position my character needs, what DCs likely look like, and what happens if my character critically succeeds, succeeds, fails, or critically fails. This allows me to make decisions for my character with a much better view of what might happen. The rules call out where judgement calls are expected to occur so I know where I should expect to negotiate with the GM.

It is possible to get that kind of information from a GM, but at that point they would just be writing their own game.

I am not saying the approach Pathfinder Second Edition takes is preferable in all cases. I do think the clear expectations it provides to both players and GMs can help (but not necessarily will) provide an experience where players have more agency over the fiction.

I think having a strong idea about the consequences rather than just success or failure is critical. I have zero interest in Spicy Dice rolls. If dice rolls do not really matter I would rather not roll them.


----------



## Manbearcat

Maxperson said:


> Under that definition, it is also not sufficient if there are rules involved.  Anything that limits the ability to enact the decision, such as rules saying how to go about enacting the decision, would take away agency, unless you are equally limited in making those decisions in the first place.




I'm going to use this response to one of my prior posts on agency @Fenris-77 in response to your question regarding "what does D&D do well? (and the implied question of "how is that expressed in agency?")"

First I'm going to focus on (a) Moldvay Basic delving (which is one of the playstyles D&D does well), (b) that second sentence (because its apposite), and (c) "why more so often becomes less" when the dungeon walls (and related constraints) are removed.

So we have a Unit of Play that the game orbits around:

*The Exploration Turn*

10 minutes of navigating 120 ft, listening, searching.  The dungeon is stocked with traps, puzzles, denizens, secret doors, treasure, et al.

We also have some Clocks:

The *Light Clock* (our lanterns and torches work on the Turn schedule...this isn't nearly punishing enough...which is one of the great changes Torchbearer made) and the *Wandering Monster Clock*; we have a 16.7 % chance to encounter Wandering Monsters on each Exploration Turn.  *Encumbrance *(lets call it a Clock because it increases our struggle as it matures) limits our ability to explore  (throttling back that 120) as we become weighed down with treasure.  We have the *Rest Clock* (every 5 turns we're disincentivized to continue without a Rest because of accruing negatives).  Finally, we have our *Resource Attrition Clock *(Hit Points, Spells, Loadout).

These things and the mechanics to handle the minutiae of delving (Traps, Searching/Listening, Combat, Monster Reaction, Morale, et al) and, along with the conversation of description<>clarification, inform player decision-points.

What does this all of this work to do?

Distill the precise _*type of agency*_ we're trying to test in _*challenge-based gaming*_.

Agency distillation is central here.

What happens if we add more stuff or take away constraints/hardships?  Lets examine just a couple of changes and their implications on play.

* Lets go from the claustrophobic dungeon/ruin to the outdoors.  Yeah, by removing the enclosed corridors, we suddenly have access (and therefore a perceived sense of increased agency) to significantly increased omnidirectional travel choice.  However...there goes our *Light Clock* (even if at night there is still the moon).  Further, lack of constraint on direction of travel will very likely make each travel-based decision-point under the Exploration Turn paradigm lower in resolution and less pressing/high-stakes in terms of attrition/danger (intersection with the holistic "Delve Clock" which is all of the Clock factors integrated).

It should be clear that this will almost surely result in *Challenge-Ablation-Creep* just on its own.

* Remove *Encumbrance*?  Suddenly, our decision-point on item loadout and treasure procurement becomes muted entirely.

Another instance of *Challenge-Ablation-Creep*.

We can continue, but it should be clear where this is going.  Each of these things are important on their own and, when combined with other changes, will serve to amplify each other (possibly to the point of rendering one facet of Challenge-based-play inert...which will have further downstream effects).



So what I'm trying to get at with this post is a few things:

1)  There is a sensitive Agency:Constraint: Play Priority relationship.  More perceived agency and/or less constraint isn't always more (_actual coherent_ agency).  Sometimes more is less because the entire point of play can become muted or damaged beyond repair.  If the point of agency in a game is to test delving skill in a threatening obstacle course, you encode play with particular constraints to ensure gamestate movement from one state to the next (and onward) is as close to a product of that skill as possible.

2)  Removal of those encoded constraints will perturb your distilled "Delving Agency" and therefore invariably perturb your Play Priority.  Given how sensitive things can be here, small changes can have big effects.  At some point (and likely very soon in the process), your changes will almost surely significantly negatively impact your initial Play Priority without the most rigorous intentful design.  Now you've moved off of your primary Play Priority to something else...likely 2 different Play Priorities...with a very keen chance that they can be at odds with each other (possibly significantly so), rendering the resultant play a good chance of being a mess of misaligned Agency and Play Priorities.

THIS is what happens a lot with D&D.  And what actually ends up happening is the GM starts relying upon Force to create a perceived experience of aligned Agency and Play Priorities when, under the hood (and definitely in the minds of the players who have sensed the tidal disruption), there is *serious *misalignment and incoherent incentive structures/feedback loops.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> If a DM would share the details when in a situation where there is a roll, then he's also going to share the details when there isn't a roll. He's not suddenly going to stop the way he's DMing to hold back details.
> 
> And it's all math.  The range of possible outcomes is 0% to 100%.  All that remains is to calculate the odds.  It doesn't cease to be math when the odds of success hit 0% or 100%.




It ceases to be math when the DM decides "Oh you insult him? He calls for the guards."

What math was the player considering in the OP? What kind of check was used? What was the DC?

As far as we know, and according to many folks in this thread, we don't need to know those answers. Because the DM is well within his ability to determine that there is no possibility of success, and not call for a roll at all, and simply narrate what happens.



Maxperson said:


> Maybe I missed it, but where was it said that 1) the PCs are more powerful than he and his guards are, and/or 2) that he knows they are more powerful?




Curse of Strahd. The PCs are adventurers from beyond Barovia. They are armed and armored, capable of using magic, and so on. It's obvious that they are more powerful than the meek villagers he is accustomed to dealing with. In the OP, he certainly seemed to deem them worth an audience, so that's all we have to go on in for that specific example. It's enough.



Maxperson said:


> Why would he have to be an obstacle to overcome?  Maybe he's just something to navigate through.  Overcome implies conflict that may or may not be there.
> 
> If I were a player hearing about such a dragon, I'd ask more questions.  Such as, "Have other heroes armed with magic made the attempt?" and so on. The description is unusual and warrants more research. In 5e, such high armor classes don't exist and any dragon can be hurt on a roll of 20, so even a bunch of peasants with bows can hurt one, so this is clearly something odd.




"Obstacle to overcome" or "navigate through" are just phrases that mean the same thing. And there absolutely is conflict between the PCs and the Baron. How they deal with that conflict is the question. So, with that in mind....compare what we know of the baron's temper with a dragon having a high AC. This was my point.

People describe the dragon as being armored. People describe the baron as being unstable. Armored has a mechanical expression in the game. Unstable has no such mechanical expression. It could. The DM can simply assign a DC with that in mind.....to convince this nutjob, you need to score X on a Persuasion check or Y on an Intimidate check. Doesn't take much. But it's not something that's already there. If it was, this thread wouldn't exist.



Maxperson said:


> Probably not.  The Baron would have heard about what Strahd does to people and would know not to insult him.




Right. Why wouldn't he consider the PCs along those lines? Not that he'd be as wary of them as he would Strahd, but more wary than townsfolk for sure.




Maxperson said:


> Sure.  Mistakes happen.  Regardless of system or agency.




Yes, mistakes can happen with any system. My point is that this system lends itself to this particular mistake. It make it more likely to happen.




Maxperson said:


> You seem to have ignored everything that came after that.  When you factor in the rest of what I said, "...*so long as the DM is describing things the way he should be.*" It will still equal a very good chance.  What you are describing is the sentence after that bolded sentence, "If the DM is giving poor descriptions then there will be issues, but those issues will affect new and old players."




It's not that I'm ignoring it, it's that I think my point is that this is a weak spot for this system. I don't think that the DM needs to do a poor job for their to be confusion. Even great DMs are going to leave something out, or they're going to be more vague than they think they're being, and so on. In most cases, this won't be poor DMing.




Maxperson said:


> It's the same thing with regard to scope.  Earth is almost always around you and it has meaning.  Player agency is almost always present, and it has meaning.  Being broad doesn't take away its meaning.




Now that you've restated this, I find it no clearer how this means anything to our discussion.



Maxperson said:


> Nope.  Nor do they allow it.  The DM has to change the game for something like this to happen, and the players would or at least should be aware of such changes.
> 
> There would have to be a house rule present.  A broken foot is beyond the scope of simple narration of a failed attempt to kick down the door.




I really don't think that's something precluded by the rules. The DM determines the outcome on a failure, whether it's no progress, or partial success, or success with a setback. I don't think that there's a rule that says "The DM can't say the PC breaks his foot."


----------



## pemerton

Manbearcat said:


> IThere is a sensitive Agency:Constraint: Play Priority relationship.  More perceived agency and/or less constraint isn't always more (_actual coherent_ agency).  Sometimes more is less because the entire point of play can become muted or damaged beyond repair.  If the point of agency in a game is to test delving skill in a threatening obstacle course, you encode play with particular constraints to ensure gamestate movement from one state to the next (and onward) is as close to a product of that skill as possible.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> THIS is what happens a lot with D&D.  And what actually ends up happening is the GM starts relying upon Force to create a perceived experience of aligned Agency and Play Priorities when, under the hood (and definitely in the minds of the players who have sensed the tidal disruption), there is *serious *misalignment and incoherent incentive structures/feedback loops.



I agree with this. It relates back to the discussion upthread of a character who is able to teleport.

Having the ability to declare, as a player, that my PC is at place X rather than place Y does not give me any significant agency if the GM is largely unconstrained in narrating what it is that my PC encounters at X or at Y, and in then narrating how that encounter unfolds in response to what I have my PC do.

My agency is largely limited to promptig the GM to establish some fiction.

This is why I am disagreeing fairly strongly that simply declaring an action for a character is, in itself, a meaningful exercise of player agency.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> {snip}
> 
> So what I'm trying to get at with this post is a few things:
> 
> 1)  There is a sensitive Agency:Constraint: Play Priority relationship.  More perceived agency and/or less constraint isn't always more (_actual coherent_ agency).  Sometimes more is less because the entire point of play can become muted or damaged beyond repair.  If the point of agency in a game is to test delving skill in a threatening obstacle course, you encode play with particular constraints to ensure gamestate movement from one state to the next (and onward) is as close to a product of that skill as possible.
> 
> 2)  Removal of those encoded constraints will perturb your distilled "Delving Agency" and therefore invariably perturb your Play Priority.  Given how sensitive things can be here, small changes can have big effects.  At some point (and likely very soon in the process), your changes will almost surely significantly negatively impact your initial Play Priority without the most rigorous intentful design.  Now you've moved off of your primary Play Priority to something else...likely 2 different Play Priorities...with a very keen chance that they can be at odds with each other (possibly significantly so), rendering the resultant play a good chance of being a mess of misaligned Agency and Play Priorities.
> 
> THIS is what happens a lot with D&D.  And what actually ends up happening is the GM starts relying upon Force to create a perceived experience of aligned Agency and Play Priorities when, under the hood (and definitely in the minds of the players who have sensed the tidal disruption), there is *serious *misalignment and incoherent incentive structures/feedback loops.




You said somewhere in the part I snipped that Moldvay-style delve play is one of the playstyles D&D does well. I'm not being argumentative, here; I'm genuinely curious what your opinion/s are: What are some other playstyles D&D does well? What would the Play Priority be for those? How would they degenerate? What would degenerate play look like? As someone who really doesn't care much for delve-style play, I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> A GM saying yes is making a similarly unilateral decision. How much that changes the fiction is likely to result in how the success is honored and how it's narrated. This is how a GM operating in bad faith can allow PCs to "succeed" while still not allowing them to change the fiction. I have seen this with my own eyes, as a player.



I don't know what you have in mind here.

"Say 'yes'" as a component of "say 'yes' or roll the dice" means that the player gets what s/he wants.

If the GM's options are to either give the player what s/he wants, or to let the player dice for what s/he wants, this is quite different from the GM being uniaterally empowered to deny the player what s/he wants.

IAre you saying that some GM's lie and pretend to "say 'yes'" when in fact they do not give the player what s/he wants? If that's so that's sound pretty sucky. But that just seems to reinforce my point that unilateral GM decisions that stop the player getting what s/he wants are at odds with robust player agency.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> So, in both procedures, as I understand them:
> 
> 1) The player proposes an action for their character.
> 2) The GM decides if there will be a roll, incorporating into that decision things such as genre-fidelity, etablished fiction, positioning. (Note that "Say yes or roll the dice" still contains a decision point.)
> 3) The player rolls the dice or otherwise resolves the action.
> 4) The result is narrated, faithful to the result of the resolution. Who narrates may be per the rules, or not.



I think I have probably a dozen posts upthread, include multiple ones that you have quoted and replied to, that deny (2).

The procedure I have stated - renumbered in accordance with your scheme and breaking out (2), has:

(2a) The credibility test is applied - is the action permissible relative to genre, fiction etc? This is something which is a matter of table consensus, and negotiation, with the GM acting as something like a chairperson.​​(2b) If the answer to (2a) is _yes_, then either (i) the GM says yes (ie the player gets what s/he wants out of the proposed action declaration) or (ii) the GM calls for a roll of the dice which will tell us whether or not the player gets what s/he wants.​
The fact that you, along with some other posters, seem resolute in disregarding this difference is quite surprising, given that the issue of _unilateral GM determinations of failure _is pretty much the topic of this thread.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I don't know what you have in mind here.
> 
> "Say 'yes'" as a component of "say 'yes' or roll the dice" means that the player gets what s/he wants.
> 
> If the GM's options are to either give the player what s/he wants, or to let the player dice for what s/he wants, this is quite different from the GM being uniaterally empowered to deny the player what s/he wants.
> 
> IAre you saying that some GM's lie and pretend to "say 'yes'" when in fact they do not give the player what s/he wants? If that's so that's sound pretty sucky. But that just seems to reinforce my point that unilateral GM decisions that stop the player getting what s/he wants are at odds with robust player agency.




I'll address this backward (sorry). Yes, I believe it's possible for a GM operating in bad faith (or from bad premises--I'm not insisting on bad intentions, here) to "say yes" in a way that negates, or undoes, or denies player agency. "Pretty sucky" sounds like an understatement. Bad GMing doesn't require malice.

As to the former: Yes, that's what I mean, but before the resolution gets to that point, there's the determination of appropriateness, possibleness (urk), and so forth; it's my understanding that if a proposed action doesn't meet those tests, there's a "no." That doesn't really seem different to me from a DM in D&D 5E (I really wish there was a game we both liked and played enough to be able to talk about the same game, don't you?) operating in good faith to determine when an Ability Check can't succeed (or, I guess in principle, can't fail).

As a side point--this is probably not super-relevant and I won't be upset if you ignore it--in the games I've played or read that were more ... explicitly about giving players agency in the fiction (mostly Fate; I've read the SRD for Blades in the Dark but haven't and likely won't play it) seems to me to have a clear trade-off, where the players get more ability to affect the fiction directly, outside of their character's capabilities, in exchange for the GM having more explicit ways to reduce their agency over their character. This seems to go with what's been said upthread about there only being so much agency to go around (as I understood it).


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I think I have probably a dozen posts upthread, include multiple ones that you have quoted and replied to, that deny (2).
> 
> The procedure I have stated - renumbered in accordance with your scheme and breaking out (2), has:
> 
> (2a) The credibility test is applied - is the action permissible relative to genre, fiction etc? This is something which is a matter of table consensus, and negotiation, with the GM acting as something like a chairperson.​​(2b) If the answer to (2a) is _yes_, then either (i) the GM says yes (ie the player gets what s/he wants out of the proposed action declaration) or (ii) the GM calls for a roll of the dice which will tell us whether or not the player gets what s/he wants.​
> The fact that you, along with some other posters, seem resolute in disregarding this difference is quite surprising, given that the issue of _unilateral GM determinations of failure _is pretty much the topic of this thread.




I will not speak for others, but I don't flatly say no often, and I don't do it capriciously. When I decide whether to say no, I am applying the credibility test; something needs to be ... pretty thoroughly not-credible before I'll deny the player a chance to roll. While I have a sense it's happened, I'm struggling to remember the last time I told someone what they wanted to do wasn't possible.

The 5E DMG specifically gives all this authority and the responsibility that comes with it to the DM. I'll quote:



> When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores. For example, a character doesn't normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of all. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.
> 
> When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:
> 
> Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
> 
> Is a task so inappropriate or impossible--such as hitting the moon with an arrow--that it can't work?
> 
> If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate.




The filter for auto-success seems pretty broad to me, and the filter for auto-failure seems really narrow. If the DM and players are operating in good faith, it doesn't seem likely that there'd be conflict all that often.


----------



## FrogReaver

pemerton said:


> I agree with this. It relates back to the discussion upthread of a character who is able to teleport.
> 
> Having the ability to declare, as a player, that my PC is at place X rather than place Y does not give me any significant agency if the GM is largely unconstrained in narrating what it is that my PC encounters at X or at Y, and in then narrating how that encounter unfolds in response to what I have my PC do.
> 
> My agency is largely limited to promptig the GM to establish some fiction.
> 
> This is why I am disagreeing fairly strongly that simply declaring an action for a character is, in itself, a meaningful exercise of player agency.




I think you are preloading the term "player agency" with a lot of additional baggage that the concept doesn't necessitate.

I think that we can all agree that different games give differing amounts of agency to players over declaring their characters actions.  Since games do this differently we should be able to talk about what impact restricting this kind of agency  in games has on the play experience.  You keep saying this kind of agency isn't meaningful, that differences in it aren't meaningful, but it's a very meaningful concept and type of agency to many of us.  It may not be very meaningful to you but it's exceedingly meaningful to us.  I mean one of the most common cited dislikes of certain games is that they don't have as much of this type of agency.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> You said somewhere in the part I snipped that Moldvay-style delve play is one of the playstyles D&D does well. I'm not being argumentative, here; I'm genuinely curious what your opinion/s are: What are some other playstyles D&D does well? What would the Play Priority be for those? How would they degenerate? What would degenerate play look like? As someone who really doesn't care much for delve-style play, I'm genuinely curious.




* *4e* does scene-based, Story Now meets Magic the Gathering tactical depth, Mythic Action-Adventure to a level that no other game on the market can even touch.  There are a few other games that have some elements of this and/or try their hand at it, but they don't get there with the completeness or with the depth or with the ease-of-use that 4e does.

Degenerate 4e play comes about when 4e GM's either (a) don't know how to run snowballing thematic, scene-framed conflict that centers exclusively on the tropes embedded in the PC (these could be technical/creative/improvisation skills like not knowing how to appropriate "Change the Situation" when a noncombat action scene should evolve from a failure or it could be just an inconsistent or poor sense of genre logic), (b) they don't know how to structure diverse and compelling combats (that incentivize movement/battlefield interactions/stunting and/or emphasize team monster synergy or attack team PC weaknesses and/or have compelling objectives that don't involve merely removing an enemy HPs to 0) or some combination thereof.

Degenerate 4e play is surely boring, with brutally long and uninteresting combats, and noncombat conflicts lacking in dynamism and thematic potency.

* *BECMI/RC and 1e* is best at high-resolution, high fantasy, sandbox hexcrawls.

Degenerate play is pretty straight-forward.  Play can become unwieldy from a table handling time/book-keeping and look-up perspective.  2/3 of the way through the Expert Set spellcasters become dominant because of their ability to consistently obviate obstacles, destroy most aspects of the "crawl" component of play, while ensuring a rest schedule that compromises their supposed-to-be limited-use resource scheduling weakness.  As a response, GM's can get desperate and annoyed and play devolves into a Rock-Paper-Scissors Calvinball game (basically with GMs shooting whenever they want and/or having access to all the nukes).  GMs feel like in order for any level of satisfying play to persist they have to endlessly leverage their unique access to the offscreen/backstory to deploy an endless cavalcade of spellcaster power-play blocks; a passive-aggressive arms race and fictional position haggling cluster.

Stop at about level 9 (or even 7) and you're typically fine!

* *AD&D 2e and 5e* provide the best experience for an Adventure Path or Metaplot-heavy, GM-driven game where talented (in all the ways a bard would be) GMs can keep the plot and the action moving at a fast pace so players can enjoy a minimized overhead experience and a sense of participating in a far-reaching fantasy story (without the serious demands/workload of propelling play).

Degenerate play here is simple.  If players are unwilling participants in the GM's or AP's preconceived story and dislike the covert Force techniques required to keep the story machine going.

It just so happens that the market for this is BY FAR the biggest for TTRPGs, likely because the % of casual players that can be caught in this net is massive.


----------



## FrogReaver

Campbell said:


> I think part of what is going on here is that some of us are associating "go to the dice" with games where the rules of the game tell us what happens. In 5th Edition except during combat and when a spell is involved the dice roll is nonbinding. In Fifth Edition the DM determines whether dice are rolled and what impact that has. This is different from even Pathfinder Second Edition which (taking some cues from Apocalypse World) lays out what success or failure mean and provides guidance on what DCs should look like for a given skill.
> 
> If I am trying to have my character intimidate a mad tyrant into doing something he does not want to do the game provides me with guidance on the sort of fictional position my character needs, what DCs likely look like, and what happens if my character critically succeeds, succeeds, fails, or critically fails. This allows me to make decisions for my character with a much better view of what might happen. The rules call out where judgement calls are expected to occur so I know where I should expect to negotiate with the GM.
> 
> It is possible to get that kind of information from a GM, but at that point they would just be writing their own game.
> 
> I am not saying the approach Pathfinder Second Edition takes is preferable in all cases. I do think the clear expectations it provides to both players and GMs can help (but not necessarily will) provide an experience where players have more agency over the fiction.
> 
> I think having a strong idea about the consequences rather than just success or failure is critical. I have zero interest in Spicy Dice rolls. If dice rolls do not really matter I would rather not roll them.




It could be argued that the real world doesn't give us a handbook on exact percentages for success and thus going to a model with resolution details hidden from us gives us something closer to real world decision making.  So if the goal of a particular RPG is to have us play like our character, think like our character and make decisions like our character I'm not so sure the fully player facing resolution system is preferable.  Ill even go a step further and say none of this has anything to do with agency.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> *AD&D 2e and 5e* provide the best experience for an Adventure Path or Metaplot-heavy, GM-driven game where talented (in all the ways a bard would be) GMs can keep the plot and the action moving at a fast pace so players can enjoy a minimized overhead experience and a sense of participating in a far-reaching fantasy story (without the serious demands/workload of propelling play).
> 
> Degenerate play here is simple.  If players are unwilling participants in the GM's or AP's preconceived story and dislike the covert Force techniques required to keep the story machine going.
> 
> It just so happens that the market for this is BY FAR the biggest for TTRPGs, likely because the % of casual players that can be caught in this net is massive.




Thanks for the answer!

So, I snipped your post, because I'm pretty much just playing 5E at the moment (open to other games as a player, not interested in investing as much as I'd have to, to introduce a new game as a GM) so obviously this is the part I'm most interested in.

I don't disagree with you that WotC clearly want 5E to be the Adventure Path Edition. I wonder if you think a DM running without a preconceived story is running something degenerate, or merely something that's not prioritized by the game's writers/publishers; possibly running something not entirely to the game's strengths. I mean, I never intentionally prep more than a session ahead; I don't really have preconceived stories; I say stories because I don't know exactly which goal a party will pursue after this one. I don't feel as though I'm using Force to, as you say, "keep the story machine going," but I'm willing to find myself wrong about that.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> People describe the dragon as being armored. People describe the baron as being unstable. Armored has a mechanical expression in the game. Unstable has no such mechanical expression. It could. The DM can simply assign a DC with that in mind.....to convince this nutjob, you need to score X on a Persuasion check or Y on an Intimidate check. Doesn't take much. But it's not something that's already there. If it was, this thread wouldn't exist.




If I describe a dragon as being armored, what armor class is it?  You could take a guess, just like you can take a guess that someone unstable has a good chance of taking your head off if you insult him.



> Right. Why wouldn't he consider the PCs along those lines? Not that he'd be as wary of them as he would Strahd, but more wary than townsfolk for sure.




How would he know the PCs are more powerful than his soldiers?  He knows Strahd.  He knows the townsfolk.  The PCs are from somewhere else.



> Yes, mistakes can happen with any system. My point is that this system lends itself to this particular mistake. It make it more likely to happen.




How does D&D make the DM sloppy with descriptions or the players miss details?



> It's not that I'm ignoring it, it's that I think my point is that this is a weak spot for this system. I don't think that the DM needs to do a poor job for their to be confusion. Even great DMs are going to leave something out, or they're going to be more vague than they think they're being, and so on. In most cases, this won't be poor DMing.




Okay, but leaving stuff out applies to every system.  It's because those playing it are human and imperfect.



> I really don't think that's something precluded by the rules. The DM determines the outcome on a failure, whether it's no progress, or partial success, or success with a setback. I don't think that there's a rule that says "The DM can't say the PC breaks his foot."



Failure = don't succeed.  It does not = don't succeed plus setback.  There are no rules for critical failures like that.  If the DM is breaking feet over simple failed attempts at opening doors, he is stepping beyond what is written.


----------



## Libramarian

pemerton said:


> Perhaps its the very deliberate lack of neutrality in the orientation of the framing towards the PCs' distinctive characters, and then the way this affects narration of failure, that is key?



That makes sense to me--I do try to be neutral in framing challenges with respect to the PCs created, although I don't think that's totally necessary for OSR play, since char gen as an arena for skilled play is not very important. I would raise an eyebrow if an OSR DM began to include more traps/locked doors in their dungeon in response to a party with multiple thieves, but it wouldn't be a game-breaker.

With respect to the narration of failures, yes I'm definitely neutral. A failed poison save is death, whether it's Snow White or Black Dougal.


----------



## FrogReaver

pemerton said:


> Two cricket teams are having to decide who fields first. Here's one way: the home side captain decides.
> 
> Here's another way: a coin is tossed, and the winner of the toss decides whether that team fields first or bats first.
> 
> The second is the way it's actually done. I don't think any cricket players or cricket fans would think that changing to the first way would not make a difference.




That's such a bad comparison I don't even know where to begin pointing out what's wrong with it.



> A GM deciding that an action fails automatically is preventing the player from changing the fiction in a way that the player cares about (given s/he declared the action for his/her PC).




The dice deciding an action fails does the same thing.



> A GM declining to "say 'yes'" to a declared action and therefore funnelling it into the action resolution mechanics is allowing the dice to determine whether the fiction changes as the player wants it to, or whether it changes in some other way more adverse to the PC.
> 
> The first looks like a unilateral decision about the fiction.




It is a unilateral decision.  But having a unilateral decision maker about the fiction doesn't necessitate player agency is taken away.  As @prabe has been saying when this is done incorrectly then a lack of agency can certainly occur but it's by no means a required feature of such a system.



> The second looks like the playing of a game in which the participants are able, via the mechanical frameworks, to change the fiction in various ways.




Just to be clear, "DM Decides" is a mechanical framework.  In such a game the mechanism for resolving actions is the DM.



> The idea that they are not different in respect of _the capacity of various participants to influence the fiction _is simply not credible.




When your premises are faulty you end up at incorrect conclusions.



> Another way to come at the same point: if the GM gets to decide everything, player input is mere suggestion. It's like a monarch and his/her courtiers and advisors.




The players have a distinguished role of being able to control their characters actions.  What your character "attempts to do" is part of the shared fiction. For that reason I don't agree that players are simply making suggestions in that style of game.  More importantly though, the GM isn't so much a monarch as he is an elected president with certain duties and obligations.  Those duties include determining success or failure when possible and setting a DC when there's too much uncertainty.  But  he is obligated to do so in a way that makes sense given the genre, other fictional constraints and anything else pertinent to the situation.



> In a structure of "say 'yes' or roll the dice" either the players get their way or the issue is rolled for. Rolling (or lottery, or other randomisation) as an unbiased decision procedure, which distributes the possibility of winning the issue over multiple participants and hence respects the agency of all of them, has a long history. Applied repeatedly - as happens in RPGIng - it is a way of integrating various participants' contributions into the unfolding shared project.




And it's easy to see where bad faith play using that methodology can also destroy the agency of the other players and DM in that kind of game.  Necessitating a roll with a chance of success for all actions, even those for ruling the world / mass mind control / etc, all tends to destroy agency just as quickly as a bad DM intent on forcing the characters to do something.



> But this isn't even true. For instance, in Burning Wheel my character might be unconscious, and hence not in any literal sense taking actions, but I might be able to make a Circles check to see if an acquaintance, having heard of my plight, comes to rescue me.




The issue is one of taking my term at literal face value instead of what I've pretty clearly been stating it means.  Character Agency = Agency of the Character = Agency over the character = Agency over the characters actions.  You seem to be confusing that with Agency over the fiction concerning the character.



> The focus on the character is just a distracting way of trying to approach the actual question, which is _can the player meaningfully affect and change the shared fiction?_




IMO in terms of comparing and contrasting RPG's it's more meaningful than that.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> Thanks for the answer!
> 
> So, I snipped your post, because I'm pretty much just playing 5E at the moment (open to other games as a player, not interested in investing as much as I'd have to, to introduce a new game as a GM) so obviously this is the part I'm most interested in.
> 
> I don't disagree with you that WotC clearly want 5E to be the Adventure Path Edition. I wonder if you think a DM running without a preconceived story is running something degenerate, or merely something that's not prioritized by the game's writers/publishers; possibly running something not entirely to the game's strengths. I mean, I never intentionally prep more than a session ahead; I don't really have preconceived stories; I say stories because I don't know exactly which goal a party will pursue after this one. I don't feel as though I'm using Force to, as you say, "keep the story machine going," but I'm willing to find myself wrong about that.




I wouldn't say degenerate, no, but its certainly not the intent of the design during the playtest (and definitely not the intent of the extremely-curated-for-specific-answer surveys during the playtest).

I have first-hand experience that 5e can be run as a "(very) Poor Man's Dungeon World", it will just fight you because only some of it is amenable to and hacking toward Story Now play (Background Traits, Treating the final Charisma Check in the Social Interacton Conflict mechanics as the DW Parley move, using a static and player-facing spread of DCs for action resolution featuring Success w/ Cost/Complication as the area between Medium and Hard DC) while, holistically, the game is designed to facilitate a very different experience (what I wrote above...which is almost the antithesis of Dungeon World).


----------



## FrogReaver

Lanefan said:


> No, for several reasons:
> 
> --- the overarching rules of the game (meta-level) tell us that single-class Fighters cannot cast arcane spells
> --- the internal rules of the fiction as presented also tell us that single-class Fighters cannot cast arcane spells
> --- NPC Fighters and PC Fighters operate under the same restriction.
> 
> Were any of the above not true then there either might be or would be a limitation being imposed, depending on the situation.




I know it's a big deal for you for NPC and PC Fighters to be mechanically identical.  I understand that to be about consistency.  I don't understand how that impacts agency at all?  Maybe you can elaborate?


----------



## Lanefan

FrogReaver said:


> I know it's a big deal for you for NPC and PC Fighters to be mechanically identical.  I understand that to be about consistency.  I don't understand how that impacts agency at all?  Maybe you can elaborate?



I'll try.

Short form: if NPC Fighters in a game setting can do thing X but PC Fighters of the same level etc. cannot, in a way my agency in what I'm able to choose to play (in this case a Fighter PC) is impacted because I cannot play a Fighter capable of doing X even though it exists in the setting - or at least that's how I see it.  A (maybe?) hypothetical example would be something like NPC-only feats.

It's exactly the same rationale used when I say that if Evil Elves, Humans, etc. exist in the setting then banning Evil PCs impacts my agency in what I'm able to choose to play in that setting, and-or how I choose to play it.

Flipping it around, where PC Fighters can do things that otherwise-equal NPC Fighters cannot, bugs me just as much from a consistency standpoint.


----------



## S'mon

Ovinomancer said:


> Thanks for the clarification.  I do, indeed, think character agency doesn't exist, although I made that case the page before I tagged you, so if you were reading around the tag, you might have missed it.  It's pretty simple.  Characters are fictional creations.  Fiction cannot choose.  Choice is a key foundation of agency.  Therefore, if you cannot choose, you cannot have agency and character agency doesn't exist.
> 
> That said, I like your second paragraph.




The film The Matrix is all about agency. I think you need to be able to buy into the concept of fictional agency to appreciate a lot of fiction.


----------



## chaochou

So, when we talk about “decides” we are using that as shorthand for “who decides what happens next in a piece of fiction”.

Instantly the idea that “the dice decide” is clearly an attempt at semantics, since (as I pointed out) dice can’t establish propositions.

This means that a participant in the game has to establish a proposition. That person has agency in the game.

The mechanic I used as an example used a dice to choose a participant. And that person gets agency.

Posters have attempted to use this to misrepresent this in a number of ways:

By focusing only on a single instance where the suggested dice roll goes against a participant and extrapolating that the losing participant never gets agency. This is clearly false, like claiming the player whose move it isn’t in chess never has agency.

By claiming that suggesting a participant only has to propose a change to the fiction, even when another has complete veto over it, is sufficient to have agency. This is so obviously false it’s laughable. It’s like claiming that toddlers have agency to get what they want by asking their parents.

Only where a game has mechanics to ensure that their proposal can result in specific outcomes they want, _and irrespective of whether the GM wants or likes that outcome_, does a player have actual agency - not just the fake versions of it so beloved of railroading GMs in this thread.


----------



## S'mon

chaochou said:


> Only where a game has mechanics to ensure that their proposal can result in specific outcomes they want, _and irrespective of whether the GM wants or likes that outcome_, does a player have actual agency - not just the fake versions of it so beloved of railroading GMs in this thread.




So board game players have Agency, but traditional RPG players have no agency? Rules-bound Kriegsspiel gives Agency but Free Kriegsspiel does not?

For me this is a degenerate definition of Agency that gives rise to derogatory terms such as Mother May I and Magical Tea Party. It fundamentally misunderstands how trad RPGs work and the GM role as judge and referee.

Edit: of course Railroading is also a degenerate play mode. Forgeist reaction to railroading gave us storygame play. But the better Forgeists don't disparage trad play per se.


----------



## S'mon

If Storygame is too broad a term to encompass stuff like Sorcerer! I suggest those could be called Author Stance RPGs, as opposed to trad RPGs which are Actor Stance RPGs in Edwards' terminology.

I'm not totally happy with Actor Stance as a tern because it discounts or does not comprehend immersion as a play goal. But Author Stance seems fine for the Edwards play mode.


----------



## pemerton

FrogReaver said:


> I think that we can all agree that different games give differing amounts of agency to players over declaring their characters actions.  Since games do this differently we should be able to talk about what impact restricting this kind of agency  in games has on the play experience.  You keep saying this kind of agency isn't meaningful, that differences in it aren't meaningful, but it's a very meaningful concept and type of agency to many of us.  It may not be very meaningful to you but it's exceedingly meaningful to us.  I mean one of the most common cited dislikes of certain games is that they don't have as much of this type of agency.



I don't know what games limit the ability of players to declare their character's actions in a way that generates dislike. I'm happy to be told about them.

But I think that's a tangent for this thread. @chaochou introduced the phrase _player agency _to help talk about what was happening in the OP. And the issue with what is going on in the OP is not that the players were forbidden from declaring actions, but that they did not seem to be able to exercise agency over the fiction at a key moment of resolution.


----------



## pemerton

S'mon said:


> If Storygame is too broad a term to encompass stuff like Sorcerer! I suggest those could be called Author Stance RPGs, as opposed to trad RPGs which are Actor Stance RPGs in Edwards' terminology.
> 
> I'm not totally happy with Actor Stance as a tern because it discounts or does not comprehend immersion as a play goal. But Author Stance seems fine for the Edwards play mode.



I'm going to disagree with this (in a friendly way among friends!).

I can't comment on Sorcerer. But games like Apocalypse World and Prince Valiant involve almost know author stance. I did a count a couple of months ago, for another thread, and found that fewer than10% of AW moves - I think it was -  involve some sort of author stance, and they are all optinal choices. This is even moreso in Prince Valiant.

Most of the systems I run are also not inimical to immersion. Probably the least immersive system I run is Classic Traveller. Though I would say Cortex+ Heroic is also perhaps up there, because of the prominence of the dice pool in resolution. Prince Valiant is super-immersive, I think. And when I play BW, I identify closely with my character.


----------



## S'mon

pemerton said:


> I'm going to disagree with this (in a friendly way among friends!).
> 
> I can't comment on Sorcerer. But games like Apocalypse World and Prince Valiant involve almost know author stance. I did a count a couple of months ago, for another thread, and found that fewer than10% of AW moves - I think it was -  involve some sort of author stance, and they are all optinal choices. This is even moreso in Prince Valiant.
> 
> Most of the systems I run are also not inimical to immersion. Probably the least immersive system I run is Classic Traveller. Though I would say Cortex+ Heroic is also perhaps up there, because of the prominence of the dice pool in resolution. Prince Valiant is super-immersive, I think. And when I play BW, I identify closely with my character.




What is your preferred term for these games in contrast to eg 1e ADnD? Is Dramatist close enough maybe? But that is usually used for "emulates dramatic fiction" without the story-build element I think?


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> I will not speak for others, but I don't flatly say no often, and I don't do it capriciously.



OK. But I don't see how this affects whether or not the players are exercising agency over the fiction.



prabe said:


> before the resolution gets to that point, there's the determination of appropriateness, possibleness (urk), and so forth; it's my understanding that if a proposed action doesn't meet those tests, there's a "no." That doesn't really seem different to me from a DM in D&D 5E (I really wish there was a game we both liked and played enough to be able to talk about the same game, don't you?) operating in good faith to determine when an Ability Check can't succeed (or, I guess in principle, can't fail).



Here is the difference between the GM unilaterally settling credibility; and doing it via table consenus: the former does not involve player agency, whereas the latter does.



prabe said:


> When I decide whether to say no, I am applying the credibility test; something needs to be ... pretty thoroughly not-credible before I'll deny the player a chance to roll.



OK. I don't see how this changes the fact that there is a difference here between conensus, and unilateral GM decision-making. Particularly because, as @Campbell has said already upthread, knowing who has the power can affect how actions are declared.



prabe said:


> The 5E DMG specifically gives all this authority and the responsibility that comes with it to the DM.



OK. I don't see how this tells us anything about player agency, though. I've read RPGIng books that tell the GM to fudge results and manipulate the fiction in order to keep the game "on track". That is an official statement of resonsibility for those games. It doesn't change the fact that those games, played in accordance with those principles, will be ones with little player agency.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> I believe it's possible for a GM operating in bad faith (or from bad premises--I'm not insisting on bad intentions, here) to "say yes" in a way that negates, or undoes, or denies player agency.





FrogReaver said:


> it's easy to see where bad faith play using that methodology can also destroy the agency of the other players and DM in that kind of game.  Necessitating a roll with a chance of success for all actions, even those for ruling the world / mass mind control / etc, all tends to destroy agency just as quickly as a bad DM intent on forcing the characters to do something.



I don't understand what is going on with the reference to "ruling the world / mass mind control" - but do you two have actual play examples of this conjectured "bad faith" appicaiton of "say 'yes' or roll the dice"?



prabe said:


> in the games I've played or read that were more ... explicitly about giving players agency in the fiction (mostly Fate; I've read the SRD for Blades in the Dark but haven't and likely won't play it) seems to me to have a clear trade-off, where the players get more ability to affect the fiction directly, outside of their character's capabilities, in exchange for the GM having more explicit ways to reduce their agency over their character. This seems to go with what's been said upthread about there only being so much agency to go around (as I understood it).



This is a recurrent thing I see on this board. There seems to be this idea that to give players agency involves so-called "narrative control".

That idea is false.

To give players agency in a (non-OSR/"skilled play") game, all that is needed is that that _the GM does not use secret/unilateral fiction to declare that action declarations fail.  _Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant and Coretex+ Heroic all fit this description.

And they do not give the GM more explicit ways to reduce players' control of their PCs. They have nothing comparable, for instance, to D&D's dominate mechanics.


----------



## pemerton

S'mon said:


> What is your preferred term for these games in contrast to eg 1e ADnD? Is Dramatist close enough maybe? But that is usually used for "emulates dramatic fiction" without the story-build element I think?



In this thread I've been using a negative phrase - _not OSR/not "skilled play".

"_Story-oriented" is probably OK. That covers quite a bit. When I read the OP, the play seems to have been more about "the story" then Moldvay-esque/Gygaxian/Pulsipherian skill.


----------



## S'mon

pemerton said:


> In this thread I've been using a negative phrase - _not OSR/not "skilled play".
> 
> "_Story-oriented" is probably OK. That covers quite a bit. When I read the OP, the play seems to have been more about "the story" then Moldvay-esque/Gygaxian/Pulsipherian skill.




"Non skilled play" or "non Gamist" seems much broader though, encompassing for instance railroad gaming with pre written story, as well as Pemertonian Scene Framing and heavy Narrarivist Exploration of Premise, right through to non RPG round robin story creation games.


----------



## prabe

chaochou said:


> Only where a game has mechanics to ensure that their proposal can result in specific outcomes they want, _and irrespective of whether the GM wants or likes that outcome_, does a player have actual agency - not just the fake versions of it so beloved of railroading GMs in this thread.




So maybe if you want reasoned responses you shouldn't presume others are acting in bad faith, either in the conversation or in the games they run. I don't see how anyone concerned enough about player agency to follow a conversation about it sixty-five pages into the rabbit hole would be likely to be run railroad games, do you?

EDIT: As an example, though @pemerton and I have been going at it pretty hard in this thread, I don't doubt for a single moment that he (?) runs games that work exceptionally well for his table. I don't think he thinks I GM in bad faith. I think there is some failure to understand each other, which we both no doubt find frustrating.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> If I describe a dragon as being armored, what armor class is it?  You could take a guess, just like you can take a guess that someone unstable has a good chance of taking your head off if you insult him.




The dragon has an armor class. 

What is the baron’s anger class?

Do you see the issue now? In this case, the baron's anger class was effectively infinite. 

The DM deciding that an insult cannot work and failure is the only outcome removes whatever agency the player was trying to exercise.



Maxperson said:


> How would he know the PCs are more powerful than his soldiers?  He knows Strahd.  He knows the townsfolk.  The PCs are from somewhere else.




It’s entirely up to the DM whether he would recognize the PCs are capable, and possibly more capable than his men could handle. I chose to play him as a madman, not an imbecile, so when I ran Curse of Strahd, he recognized capable opponents when he saw them. 



Maxperson said:


> How does D&D make the DM sloppy with descriptions or the players miss details?




It doesn’t make them do that. But it can lend itself to that. Look at the OP. 



Maxperson said:


> Okay, but leaving stuff out applies to every system.  It's because those playing it are human and imperfect.




And so are the games themselves. This is just one of the flaws with 5E. 



Maxperson said:


> Failure = don't succeed.  It does not = don't succeed plus setback.  There are no rules for critical failures like that.  If the DM is breaking feet over simple failed attempts at opening doors, he is stepping beyond what is written.




This is not even remotely true. 

If my PC tries to jump a canyon, and he doesn’t succeed....what happens? Does he just skid to a stop at the precipice? Does he land on the other side but maybe takes some HP in damage from a hard impact? Or does he fall into the chasm?

If my PC tries to intimidate a Baron and fails, does the Baron simply remain unintimidated? Is he intimidated, but perhaps more guarded about negotiation? Does he get angry and call for his guards?

I think it’s very clear that a DM can apply additional consequences on a failed roll. I feel like you didn’t really think about what you were claiming. This happens all the time in the game.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> OK. But I don't see how this affects whether or not the players are exercising agency over the fiction.




If the players changing the fictional state, specifically through their characters, aren't they exercising agency?



pemerton said:


> Here is the difference between the GM unilaterally settling credibility; and doing it via table consenus: the former does not involve player agency, whereas the latter does.




Wouldn't allowing a player a say in whether his own declaration was credible bring back one of the problems that having a GM is supposed to solve? If you're excluding that player from the decision I don't believe he has agency as you've been talking about it. I mean, it seems like a reasonable presumption that the player believes the proposed action is credible.



pemerton said:


> OK. I don't see how this changes the fact that there is a difference here between conensus, and unilateral GM decision-making. Particularly because, as @Campbell has said already upthread, knowing who has the power can affect how actions are declared.




Yes, unilateral decision-making is different from concensus decision-making; that's practically a tautology. What I'm saying is that there's not a lot of difference between "the GM [not the player] says no" and "the table [not the player] says no."




pemerton said:


> OK. I don't see how this tells us anything about player agency, though. I've read RPGIng books that tell the GM to fudge results and manipulate the fiction in order to keep the game "on track". That is an official statement of resonsibility for those games. It doesn't change the fact that those games, played in accordance with those principles, will be ones with little player agency.




Yes, fudging results and outcomes, not letting player/character decisions matter is bad GMing, and keeping the campaign on a specific story is a common reason for doing those things; advice to do those things is crap advice, and advice to do those things for those reasons is crappy crap advice. A good GM, operating in good faith, encourages player agency.

My point in quoting the 5E DMG at you is that a DM in 5E who doesn't run decisions by the table for concensus isn't necessarily operating in bad faith. They're just doing what the rules tell them to do. The 5E DMG is ... depressingly neutral about fudging and such.


----------



## Campbell

S'mon said:


> If Storygame is too broad a term to encompass stuff like Sorcerer! I suggest those could be called Author Stance RPGs, as opposed to trad RPGs which are Actor Stance RPGs in Edwards' terminology.
> 
> I'm not totally happy with Actor Stance as a tern because it discounts or does not comprehend immersion as a play goal. But Author Stance seems fine for the Edwards play mode.




My preference is to simply call them (particularly post-Forge games like Apocalypse World) roleplaying games.  At least in the games I choose to play a player's orientation towards their character is pretty much the same as it is in more mainstream games. The rules cover more of the psychosocial elements of the fiction, but I am just like playing a character. Most of what makes them work differently comes from the ways GMs operate in them.

I honestly think we make too much of the trad / indie divide. A game like Sorcerer has much in common with Vampire Fifth Edition (although not other versions of Vampire), much more in common than either have with Moldvay. A whole host of FATE play has a lot more in common with Critical Role D&D than it has in common with Apocalypse World. Even in the OSR space something like Wolves of God or Godbound is phenomenally different from the delve focus of Nightmares Underneath,  The truth is that these distinctions are phenomenally messy.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I don't understand what is going on with the reference to "ruling the world / mass mind control" - but do you two have actual play examples of this conjectured "bad faith" appicaiton of "say 'yes' or roll the dice"?




I said I believe it is possible, because I don't believe any game system is foolproof. I do not know that I have played any published games that were so explicit about "Say yes or roll the dice" so I don't have any play examples of good-faith GMing in the style (though I'm sure they exist).



pemerton said:


> This is a recurrent thing I see on this board. There seems to be this idea that to give players agency involves so-called "narrative control".
> 
> That idea is false.




What I said about Blades in the Dark--and especially what I said about Fate--was literally true. Fate literally gives the players the ability to change the facts of a scene by spending a Fate Point, in a way that is explicitly not limited by what their characters can do. It's more like a fourth-wall-breaking cartoon (such as Duck Amuck) where there is animation of an animator's eraser and pencil changing the scene around the characters. That seems pretty explicitly to be both player agency and narrative authority.

I've been pretty clear, I think, about separating player agency and narrative control. Player agency is the ability to change of the fiction; narrative authority is the ability to describe specifics. If a player successfully kicks down a door, that changes the fiction; some games (some tables) have the player narrate the door flying open in the requisite cloud of splinters, others have the GM do so. In Fate I have specifically asked a player (after a relevant roll) "What's going on in this town? Tell me [some number, I think three] things." That is very specifically about narrative authority, I think (though you might prefer a different term for it.



pemerton said:


> To give players agency in a (non-OSR/"skilled play") game, all that is needed is that that _the GM does not use secret/unilateral fiction to declare that action declarations fail.  _Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant and Coretex+ Heroic all fit this description.
> 
> And they do not give the GM more explicit ways to reduce players' control of their PCs. They have nothing comparable, for instance, to D&D's dominate mechanics.




How did the character in your game of Prince Valiant earn their Storyteller Certificate? Genuinely asking because I know literally nothing of the game but from your play examples (which I tend to find confusing, because I don't know the game ... part of why I wish we had a game in common). I know nothing of Burning Wheel or Cortex+Heroic but that they exist, but in Mutants and Masterminds, you can earn Hero Points by accepting negative results, or by having a Drawback (something on your character sheet) come into play, usually in a way that at least indirectly reduces your agency; in Fate, you earn Fate points by accepting Compels, which directly re-frame the scene around your character, sometimes in ways that reduce your agency. Neither of those function in play as anything like D&D's charm/dominate effects (which comparison I think I've seen you make before, so there's a possibility you won't believe me).


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> I wouldn't say degenerate, no, but its certainly not the intent of the design during the playtest (and definitely not the intent of the extremely-curated-for-specific-answer surveys during the playtest).
> 
> I have first-hand experience that 5e can be run as a "(very) Poor Man's Dungeon World", it will just fight you because only some of it is amenable to and hacking toward Story Now play (Background Traits, Treating the final Charisma Check in the Social Interacton Conflict mechanics as the DW Parley move, using a static and player-facing spread of DCs for action resolution featuring Success w/ Cost/Complication as the area between Medium and Hard DC) while, holistically, the game is designed to facilitate a very different experience (what I wrote above...which is almost the antithesis of Dungeon World).




Thanks for this answer, too.

I haven't noticed 5E fighting me, particularly, probably because I'm not setting out to run it like Dungeon World (probably because I've never even read a PbtA game), but I'm clear that I'm not running the sort of game WotC envision being played--no published adventure paths for me, thanks; I'm happier by far to let the characters choose their own goals so I can put things in the way of those.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> The dragon has an armor class.




He also has anger issues.  We know both.  What is the exact armor class based on "The dragon is armored."?  If you can't tell me, then it is also vague and you don't have all the information, just like when told about the baron's anger issues.



> What is the baron’s anger class?




High.



> Do you see the issue now? In this case, the baron's anger class was effectively infinite.




It's not infinite.  That's just silly.  The dragon has a high armor class.  The baron has a high anger class.  We know both and can make informed decisions about those things.



> The DM deciding that an insult cannot work and failure is the only outcome removes whatever agency the player was trying to exercise.




He can also just decide that you miss your swing.  You only get to roll when the outcome is in doubt.  You can declare your attack, then the DM narrates the outcome, calling for a roll if the outcome is uncertain(PHB page 7).



> It’s entirely up to the DM whether he would recognize the PCs are capable, and possibly more capable than his men could handle. I chose to play him as a madman, not an imbecile, so when I ran Curse of Strahd, he recognized capable opponents when he saw them.




Just by looking at them?



> It doesn’t make them do that. But it can lend itself to that. Look at the OP.




No more than any other game where the DM is describing things.  D&D doesn't lend itself to that mistake any more or less than those others.  It's a person mistake, not a system mistake.



> And so are the games themselves. This is just one of the flaws with 5E.




And every other game where a DM, or player for that matter, has to describe anything at all.



> If my PC tries to jump a canyon, and he doesn’t succeed....what happens? Does he just skid to a stop at the precipice? Does he land on the other side but maybe takes some HP in damage from a hard impact? Or does he fall into the chasm?




Other come into effect at that point.  The attempt was to jump the canyon, so the failure only = did not succeed in jumping over the canyon.  However, since you are now suspended over air, the falling rules come into play. 



> If my PC tries to intimidate a Baron and fails, does the Baron simply remain unintimidated? Is he intimidated, but perhaps more guarded about negotiation? Does he get angry and call for his guards?
> 
> I think it’s very clear that a DM can apply additional consequences on a failed roll. I feel like you didn’t really think about what you were claiming. This happens all the time in the game.



5e doesn't have broken bones, though.  There's no mechanism to even heal it.  If you were to rule that the PC breaks his foot after a failed attempt to break down the door, are you going to just fix the foot after a night's rest?  If not, how much time is it going to take?  Wounds don't give penalties.  Are you going to penalize the PC for the broken foot?  He can't walk on it.  He can't fight effectively with it.  What's that penalty going to look like?

It's pretty clear that the DM is stepping outside of the rules to break the foot.


----------



## Maxperson

pemerton said:


> I don't know what games limit the ability of players to declare their character's actions in a way that generates dislike. I'm happy to be told about them.
> 
> But I think that's a tangent for this thread. @chaochou introduced the phrase _player agency _to help talk about what was happening in the OP. And the issue with what is going on in the OP is not that the players were forbidden from declaring actions, but that they did not seem to be able to exercise agency over the fiction at a key moment of resolution.



So first, I think the key moment was in the decision to insult the highly volatile baron/burger master/burger king/burger meister/lord/mayor.  That player got to do what he wished and it had a tremendous impact on the fiction, and likely achieved what he desired, since he knew an insult would cause the highly volatile baron/burger master/burger king/burger meister/lord/mayor to flip his lid.

Second, they were in fact able to exercise agency over the fiction at the key moment of resolution.  One of the other PCs attempted to take the highly volatile baron/burger master/burger king/burger meister/lord/mayor prisoner, but failed his roll, while two other PCs opted to leave the room as their resolution and succeeded.  The two PCs who angered and attacked the highly volatile baron/burger master/burger king/burger meister/lord/mayor were taken prisoner by the guards, indicating that they were not in fact more powerful than the highly volatile baron/burger master/burger king/burger meister/lord/mayor(@hawkeyefan)

Seems like agency was all around.


----------



## Ovinomancer

S'mon said:


> The film The Matrix is all about agency. I think you need to be able to buy into the concept of fictional agency to appreciate a lot of fiction.



I agree 100%, the Matrix is about agency.  The characters in the Matrix do not actually have agency, though, being entirely directed by the author's choices and not their own.  

This is like saying that you played a game with a dragon.  The game was about dragons.  There were no actual dragons present, though.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> I said I believe it is possible, because I don't believe any game system is foolproof. I do not know that I have played any published games that were so explicit about "Say yes or roll the dice" so I don't have any play examples of good-faith GMing in the style (though I'm sure they exist).
> 
> 
> 
> What I said about Blades in the Dark--and especially what I said about Fate--was literally true. Fate literally gives the players the ability to change the facts of a scene by spending a Fate Point, in a way that is explicitly not limited by what their characters can do. It's more like a fourth-wall-breaking cartoon (such as Duck Amuck) where there is animation of an animator's eraser and pencil changing the scene around the characters. That seems pretty explicitly to be both player agency and narrative authority.
> 
> I've been pretty clear, I think, about separating player agency and narrative control. Player agency is the ability to change of the fiction; narrative authority is the ability to describe specifics. If a player successfully kicks down a door, that changes the fiction; some games (some tables) have the player narrate the door flying open in the requisite cloud of splinters, others have the GM do so. In Fate I have specifically asked a player (after a relevant roll) "What's going on in this town? Tell me [some number, I think three] things." That is very specifically about narrative authority, I think (though you might prefer a different term for it.
> 
> 
> 
> How did the character in your game of Prince Valiant earn their Storyteller Certificate? Genuinely asking because I know literally nothing of the game but from your play examples (which I tend to find confusing, because I don't know the game ... part of why I wish we had a game in common). I know nothing of Burning Wheel or Cortex+Heroic but that they exist, but in Mutants and Masterminds, you can earn Hero Points by accepting negative results, or by having a Drawback (something on your character sheet) come into play, usually in a way that at least indirectly reduces your agency; in Fate, you earn Fate points by accepting Compels, which directly re-frame the scene around your character, sometimes in ways that reduce your agency. Neither of those function in play as anything like D&D's charm/dominate effects (which comparison I think I've seen you make before, so there's a possibility you won't believe me).



So, I think this might be a good time to examine the premises underlying the arguments.  I know I, and I believe @pemerton, look at player agency as the ability for the player to make choices about and have the ability to realize these choices within the in-game fiction.  To me, declaring actions for my character is just one way to do this.  Using a non-PC centered tool is another way.  Both achieve player agency.

I think you, and please correct this if I'm off-base, are looking at the primary means of play being through the PC.  This is why you see a large distinction between declaring PC actions and resolution of those and a different tool that doesn't involve declaring PC actions.  The use of the term "meta-currency" seems to reinforce this.  This is, after all, how D&D has traditionally played, so it's not surprising is a common point of reference, nor does it mean this construction is wrong.  If that's how you want to play, and you have fun, then it's the best kind of right.

However, when discussing the concept at a high level rather than from the within the frame of how you play, it's a stumbling block for understanding.  I can't speak for @pemerton, but I certainly don't see use of a FATE point to add some fiction to a scene, or leveraging a Flashback in Blades as somehow special or set aside from declaring PC actions in pursuit of player agency.  They're all just tools in the toolbox.  There's nothing inherently special about declaring actions for your PC that elevates it to a higher tier of relevance.  Granted, the focus of most RPGs is to inhabit a character, so it's certainly going to be an almost required tool in play, and often the most common tool.  But it's not the only tool and it's commonality doesn't mean other tools shouldn't be considered equally in looking at how a player can make choices and realize those choices about the in-game fiction.  Though this is usually via a character, it's not a required component to do this.


----------



## FrogReaver

pemerton said:


> I don't know what games limit the ability of players to declare their character's actions in a way that generates dislike. I'm happy to be told about them.
> 
> But I think that's a tangent for this thread. @chaochou introduced the phrase _player agency _to help talk about what was happening in the OP. And the issue with what is going on in the OP is not that the players were forbidden from declaring actions, but that they did not seem to be able to exercise agency over the fiction at a key moment of resolution.




chacochou attempted to turn this into a discussion about agency and succeeded.  Now we are talking about agency and not so much about the OP at all.  For the discussion about agency the idea of agency over your characters actions matters because some games don't allow as much of that to varying degrees.

To answer the first question I need to know whether it's that you don't know of any games that ever limit a players ability to declare their character's actions?  Or whether you think that games do that but everyone likes that part of those games?


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> chacochou attempted to turn this into a discussion about agency and succeeded.  Now we are talking about agency and not so much about the OP at all.  For the discussion about agency the idea of agency over your characters actions matters because some games don't allow as much of that to varying degrees.
> 
> To answer the first question I need to know whether it's that you don't know of any games that ever limit a players ability to declare their character's actions?  Or whether you think that games do that but everyone likes that part of those games?



The OP is, fundamentally, all about agency.  We just started talking about resolution techniques first.


----------



## FrogReaver

I think examining a commonly accepted D&D mechanic that takes away player agency over their characters actions will be a helpful exercise.

The Dominate Person spell.  Why is this spell acceptable where non-magical implementations of reducing player agency over character actions tend to be found unacceptable?  What is the difference?

The Dominate Person spell is an in-fiction method where a character loses control over himself.  That is, in fictional terms such a character has no agency over himself.  In other words, the loss in player agency over character actions corresponds to a fictional state where the character has lost agency over his own actions.  That correspondence is what makes the loss of player agency over character actions acceptable for many people and the lack of that correspondence is what makes them find it unacceptable.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> The OP is, fundamentally, all about agency.  We just started talking about resolution techniques first.




Completely Disagree.  I talked a lot about how the situation was handled without need for any talk of agency.  If anything, I'd say the agency discussion has distracted focus away from the OP.


----------



## FrogReaver

hawkeyefan said:


> And so are the games themselves. This is just one of the flaws with 5E.




I want everyone to notice how this isn't just about discussing what's different about various games and ways of doing things.  The ways certain games do things is actually thought of as being flawed.  It's responses like this that convince me that most people that try to say a certain gaming methodology has less agency actually mean it as a slight no matter how many times they insist it is not.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I don't know what games limit the ability of players to declare their character's actions in a way that generates dislike. I'm happy to be told about them.
> 
> But I think that's a tangent for this thread. @chaochou introduced the phrase _player agency _to help talk about what was happening in the OP. And the issue with what is going on in the OP is not that the players were forbidden from declaring actions, but that they did not seem to be able to exercise agency over the fiction at a key moment of resolution.




All right. In principle--as in, it would seem to be to be by-the-book--a GM in Fate can place a Compel on a character whose player has no Fate Points, and because it costs a Fate Point to turn down a Compel, the player would have no way to refuse it--as I remember the rules, the player isn't even allowed to use that Fate Point in a check generated by that Compel. It is in principle possible for a Compel to be about a character's actions. (The example I saw floated was using a Compel to force a PC to steal something from their employer.) I can think of at least one player who violently dislikes that. (Hint: It's @prabe )


----------



## Maxperson

FrogReaver said:


> I think examining a commonly accepted D&D mechanic that takes away player agency over their characters actions will be a helpful exercise.
> 
> The Dominate Person spell.  Why is this spell acceptable where non-magical implementations of reducing player agency over character actions tend to be found unacceptable?  What is the difference?
> 
> The Dominate Person spell is an in-fiction method where a character loses control over himself.  That is, in fictional terms such a character has no agency over himself.  In other words, the loss in player agency over character actions corresponds to a fictional state where the character has lost agency over his own actions.  That correspondence is what makes the loss of player agency over character actions acceptable for many people and the lack of that correspondence is what makes them find it unacceptable.



I think that we all fundamentally understand that things like Dominate Person(if magic were real), truth serums, etc., could take away our ability to resist what someone wants of us, so we are okay with those sorts of things happening to our PCs in the game.  Someone talking to us, though, can't make us do anything without some sort of coercion happening.  Nobody is going to be able to walk up and talk me into spending $20,000 on something I don't want, no matter how good they are, so we have resistance to NPCs or other PCs being able to do that to our PCs.  That's the difference.


----------



## FrogReaver

Maxperson said:


> I think that we all fundamentally understand that things like Dominate Person(if magic were real), truth serums, etc., could take away our ability to resist what someone wants of us, so we are okay with those sorts of things happening to our PCs in the game.  Someone talking to us, though, can't make us do anything without some sort of coercion happening.  Nobody is going to be able to walk up and talk me into spending $20,000 on something I don't want, no matter how good they are, so we have resistance to NPCs or other PCs being able to do that to our PCs.  That's the difference.




Past experience in similar discussions informs me otherwise.  You'd be surprised how often such things are trotted out as being equivalent in terms of player agency with no other substantial difference when compared with Dominate Person magic.


----------



## Maxperson

FrogReaver said:


> I want everyone to notice how this isn't just about discussing what's different about various games and ways of doing things.  The ways certain games do things is actually thought of as being flawed.  It's responses like this that convince me that most people that try to say a certain gaming methodology has less agency actually mean it as a slight no matter how many times they insist it is not.



What's really amazing to me, is that he is saying that describing things is the flaw, yet only attributing that flaw to D&D.


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> All right. In principle--as in, it would seem to be to be by-the-book--a GM in Fate can place a Compel on a character whose player has no Fate Points, and because it costs a Fate Point to turn down a Compel, the player would have no way to refuse it--as I remember the rules, the player isn't even allowed to use that Fate Point in a check generated by that Compel. It is in principle possible for a Compel to be about a character's actions. (The example I saw floated was using a Compel to force a PC to steal something from their employer.) I can think of at least one player who violently dislikes that. (Hint: It's @prabe )




Thanks for the help, I only know what others choose to share with me about those kinds of games and so I'm hesitant to answer about them.


----------



## Maxperson

FrogReaver said:


> Past experience in similar discussions informs me otherwise.  You'd be surprised how often such things are trotted out as being equivalent in terms of player agency with no other substantial difference when compared with Dominate Person magic.



Similar in that both would remove agency according to those people.  Why one method of agency removal okay and the other not, though, is I think because of what I said above.


----------



## FrogReaver

Maxperson said:


> Similar in that both would remove agency according to those people.  Why one method of agency removal okay and the other not, though, is I think because of what I said above.




Well the problem is that the concept of an in-fiction action removing the agency being acceptable is rejected out of hand (or more accurately used a catch 22).  That's why I introduced the concept of correspondence between what the characters fictional agency over his own actions and the players agency over that characters actions.  The notion of that correspondence cannot be rejected out of hand because it's obvious and so it an be held up as a reason to explain why only certain in-fiction actions removing such agency are actually acceptable.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> So, I think this might be a good time to examine the premises underlying the arguments.  I know I, and I believe @pemerton, look at player agency as the ability for the player to make choices about and have the ability to realize these choices within the in-game fiction.  To me, declaring actions for my character is just one way to do this.  Using a non-PC centered tool is another way.  Both achieve player agency.




That seems as though it is probably correct, though using meta-currency as a player doesn't feel to me so much like agency as narrative authority. I don't get to change the direction of the fiction, I just get to change the framing of the scene: I can use a Fate Point (and an Aspect my character has) to turn a random mook into my character's college roommate, but that doesn't define how the fiction progresses outside that scene. The Certificate @pemerton has mentioned in Prince Valiant, he's described as an auto-win, which seems different (and may be why he doesn't think of it as a metagame instrument/mechanic).



Ovinomancer said:


> I think you, and please correct this if I'm off-base, are looking at the primary means of play being through the PC.  This is why you see a large distinction between declaring PC actions and resolution of those and a different tool that doesn't involve declaring PC actions.  The use of the term "meta-currency" seems to reinforce this.  This is, after all, how D&D has traditionally played, so it's not surprising is a common point of reference, nor does it mean this construction is wrong.  If that's how you want to play, and you have fun, then it's the best kind of right.




I've done some thinking about it, and I figure that it's my strongly-preferred way to play because I want it to be my character's story, not my story (multiplied by the number of characters/players). It's probably why using meta-currency feels so different to me than operating as my character--the difference between spending a Fate Point to edit an NPC and using a Charm Person spell, more or less. I suspect that makes sense to you. It also, I think, talks to your paragraph below, about tools in the toolbox, which I don't have any strong argument with.



Ovinomancer said:


> However, when discussing the concept at a high level rather than from the within the frame of how you play, it's a stumbling block for understanding.  I can't speak for @pemerton, but I certainly don't see use of a FATE point to add some fiction to a scene, or leveraging a Flashback in Blades as somehow special or set aside from declaring PC actions in pursuit of player agency.  They're all just tools in the toolbox.  There's nothing inherently special about declaring actions for your PC that elevates it to a higher tier of relevance.  Granted, the focus of most RPGs is to inhabit a character, so it's certainly going to be an almost required tool in play, and often the most common tool.  But it's not the only tool and it's commonality doesn't mean other tools shouldn't be considered equally in looking at how a player can make choices and realize those choices about the in-game fiction.  Though this is usually via a character, it's not a required component to do this.




I'm not agreeing with this position, but I believe you have elucidated why it has been said that games that use such metagame rules aren't TRPGs--because they force the players to divorce themselves from their characters, to want something other than what their characters want, to act in the game differently from what their characters arguably should. That has the potential to open a can of worms, so I'm going to say again that it's not my position: I'm perfectly happy to call Blades or Fate or AW or any of the other games that have been mentioned in this thread TRPGs; I don't think they're really operating all that differently, and I don't see any point in defining the category so it only includes games I like.


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> Thanks for the help, I only know what others choose to share with me about those kinds of games and so I'm hesitant to answer about them.




No worries. I should be clear that I don't think GMing Fate that way would be entirely in the spirit of the rules (which would make it at least not-good GMing) but the game does seem to presume a more antagonistic GM than I'm happy being (or playing with).


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> No worries. I should be clear that I don't think GMing Fate that way would be entirely in the spirit of the rules (which would make it at least not-good GMing) but the game does seem to presume a more antagonistic GM than I'm happy being (or playing with).




Excellent point.  I think though that holding up the possibility of bad GM'ing in D&D as being able to cause such issues allows us to hold up the possibility of bad GM'ing in those games to cause issues as well.


----------



## Maxperson

FrogReaver said:


> Well the problem is that the concept of an in-fiction action removing the agency being acceptable is rejected out of hand.




I've seen a lot of people on the other side state that there are times when loss of agency is okay, and that things like Dominate are one of those ways.  @hawkeyefan has said something similar in this thread.  I've also seen in other threads where people say that any loss of agency ever is not okay.



> That's why I introduced the concept of correspondence between what the characters fictional agency over his own actions and the players agency over that characters actions.  The notion of that correspondence cannot be rejected out of hand because it's obvious and so it an be held up as a reaosn to explain why in-fiction actions removing such agency are actually acceptable.



I can see the relationship, but I don't see how the correspondence makes it more acceptable.  In situation A we have an in-fiction reason(dominate) removing agency from the PC and correspondingly, from the player.  In situation B we have an in-fiction reason(persuade check) removing agency fromthe PC and correspondingly, from the player.  Both have an in-fiction reason. Both have the corresponding losses.  Why is A acceptable and B not?  I think it's for the reason I pointed out above.


----------



## FrogReaver

Maxperson said:


> I can see the relationship, but I don't see how the correspondence makes it more acceptable.  In situation A we have an in-fiction reason(dominate) removing agency from the PC and correspondingly, from the player.  In situation B we have an in-fiction reason(persuade check) removing agency fromthe PC and correspondingly, from the player.  Both have an in-fiction reason. Both have the corresponding losses.  Why is A acceptable and B not?  I think it's for the reason I pointed out above.




I changed my wording a little in my post as it wasn't reading exactly as I intended.

Persuasion is not acceptable for that because no in-fiction persuade attempt has the power to fictionally control a character -> which then leads to a mismatch between your characters fictional agency over their own actions and your agency as a player over their actions.


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> I think examining a commonly accepted D&D mechanic that takes away player agency over their characters actions will be a helpful exercise.
> 
> The Dominate Person spell.  Why is this spell acceptable where non-magical implementations of reducing player agency over character actions tend to be found unacceptable?  What is the difference?
> 
> The Dominate Person spell is an in-fiction method where a character loses control over himself.  That is, in fictional terms such a character has no agency over himself.  In other words, the loss in player agency over character actions corresponds to a fictional state where the character has lost agency over his own actions.  That correspondence is what makes the loss of player agency over character actions acceptable for many people and the lack of that correspondence is what makes them find it unacceptable.




I was thinking about this earlier today, and I think I figured out at least why it doesn't bother me (which may have zero correlation to why it does or doesn't bother anyone else). It's not so much an argument against your point as a different view.

If an illithid Dominates my PC, well, that's something illithids do; it's how they tell their story; it's part of the way the world in which the story is happening works. If a GM forces my PC to behave in a way counter to my wishes via a meta-game mechanic, that's the GM changing my character's story; that's my job (and my character's). I don't mind in-story opposition; out-of-story opposition (I know this from experience) drives me bonkers.


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> I was thinking about this earlier today, and I think I figured out at least why it doesn't bother me (which may have zero correlation to why it does or doesn't bother anyone else). It's not so much an argument against your point as a different view.
> 
> If an illithid Dominates my PC, well, that's something illithids do; it's how they tell their story; it's part of the way the world in which the story is happening works. If a GM forces my PC to behave in a way counter to my wishes via a meta-game mechanic, that's the GM changing my character's story; that's my job (and my character's). I don't mind in-story opposition; out-of-story opposition (I know this from experience) drives me bonkers.




So what of a Damsel charming you to do something for her?  Let's assume there's some charm mechanic that gets invoked and rolled and you fail/she succeeds and now she has you do X.  I get the impression you would be against this but your reasoning above doesn't explain why.  Theoretically it's what she does, it's how she tells her story, it's part of the world the story is happening in.  It's not a metagame mechanic.  So what is different here?  Or do I misjudge and you would be okay with this?


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> Completely Disagree.  I talked a lot about how the situation was handled without need for any talk of agency.  If anything, I'd say the agency discussion has distracted focus away from the OP.



Sure, you can talk about the OP and not mention agency.  You could talk about it and not mention d20s.  That doesn't change that both were involved, largely in their absence for the specific point of interest.

I honestly find it somewhat baffling that you've argued multiple different ways to maintain that a GM ruling auto-failure isn't a loss of player agency.  I think it is and yet have no issues when running 5e in doing it.  I don't think the loss of agency in the OP is a problem -- that really lies in the whys and hows the OP happened.  Loss of agency isn't an inherently bad thing.  Restricting agency is a fundamental of game design.  That loss of agency is implicated in the OP doesn't render anything wrong or bad, but it is a valid tool for analysis because it points to places that need consideration.

Again, loss of or restriction of agency is not inherently bad.  Increasing agency is not inherently good.

EDIT:  There was an important negation missing from the first sentence of the second paragraph.  It is added now.  I also changed the second sentence of the same paragraph to be clearer with the negation added.  The intent of neither sentence was changed.  I've underlined my changes.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> I want everyone to notice how this isn't just about discussing what's different about various games and ways of doing things.  The ways certain games do things is actually thought of as being flawed.  It's responses like this that convince me that most people that try to say a certain gaming methodology has less agency actually mean it as a slight no matter how many times they insist it is not.



Um, if you can't say that a game has flaws (and all games do), then the claim is that a game is perfect.  Surely you aren't advancing that?

As @hawkeyefan had repeatedly said, he both runs and enjoys running 5e.  I also run and enjoy running 5e.  It has flaws.  So what?  Do you need it to not to?


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> So what of a Damsel charming you to do something for her?  Let's assume there's some charm mechanic that gets invoked and rolled and you fail/she succeeds and now she has you do X.  I get the impression you would be against this but your reasoning above doesn't explain why.  Theoretically it's what she does, it's how she tells her story, it's part of the world the story is happening in.  It's not a metagame mechanic.  So what is different here?  Or do I misjudge and you would be okay with this?




I think I'd resent the NPC, but not necessarily the GM. At least, that's my first instinct. I mean, it's OK for a GM in a supers game to have mind-controlling villains, IMO. Sure, there could be Bad GMing (I feel as though I should trademark that) but Bad GMing isn't a requirement for having an NPC/villain/monster charm or dominate a PC.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> All right. In principle--as in, it would seem to be to be by-the-book--a GM in Fate can place a Compel on a character whose player has no Fate Points, and because it costs a Fate Point to turn down a Compel, the player would have no way to refuse it--as I remember the rules, the player isn't even allowed to use that Fate Point in a check generated by that Compel. It is in principle possible for a Compel to be about a character's actions. (The example I saw floated was using a Compel to force a PC to steal something from their employer.) I can think of at least one player who violently dislikes that. (Hint: It's @prabe )



That's a bit off-center.  A GM in FATE can offer a Compel, and the player cannot refuse it if they don't have FATE points to spend to counter it, but the only thing the GM can Compel are the traits that the player chose for their character that represent the trouble or issue that character has.  In other words, the GM can only compel you to, well, play your character as you defined them.  It is a loss of agency?  Absolutely -- you aren't making the choice to engage in that flaw right now otherwise.  Is it the same loss of agency as a dominate person?  Absolutely not -- you did get a choice in what could be Compelled whereas you do not get any choices with Dominate Person.  Does this distinction matter?  Well, if you're going to be upset at the concept of Compelling and feel it's a usurpation of your right to control your character, then no, not really.  But, in a clear analysis, these things are different.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> Um, if you can't say that a game has flaws (and all games do), then the claim is that a game is perfect.  Surely you aren't advancing that?
> 
> As @hawkeyefan had repeatedly said, he both runs and enjoys running 5e.  I also run and enjoy running 5e.  It has flaws.  So what?  Do you need it to not to?




I'd say devoting some time to "other games have flaws too" would suffice to put an end to that perception.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> That seems as though it is probably correct, though using meta-currency as a player doesn't feel to me so much like agency as narrative authority. I don't get to change the direction of the fiction, I just get to change the framing of the scene: I can use a Fate Point (and an Aspect my character has) to turn a random mook into my character's college roommate, but that doesn't define how the fiction progresses outside that scene. The Certificate @pemerton has mentioned in Prince Valiant, he's described as an auto-win, which seems different (and may be why he doesn't think of it as a metagame instrument/mechanic).
> 
> 
> 
> I've done some thinking about it, and I figure that it's my strongly-preferred way to play because I want it to be my character's story, not my story (multiplied by the number of characters/players). It's probably why using meta-currency feels so different to me than operating as my character--the difference between spending a Fate Point to edit an NPC and using a Charm Person spell, more or less. I suspect that makes sense to you. It also, I think, talks to your paragraph below, about tools in the toolbox, which I don't have any strong argument with.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not agreeing with this position, but I believe you have elucidated why it has been said that games that use such metagame rules aren't TRPGs--because they force the players to divorce themselves from their characters, to want something other than what their characters want, to act in the game differently from what their characters arguably should. That has the potential to open a can of worms, so I'm going to say again that it's not my position: I'm perfectly happy to call Blades or Fate or AW or any of the other games that have been mentioned in this thread TRPGs; I don't think they're really operating all that differently, and I don't see any point in defining the category so it only includes games I like.



My experience with Blades is that I'm more connected with the character even though it has non-PC centered tools for the player than I am in 5e where I don't.  Fundamentally this is because Blades focuses the game like a laser on things my character cares about and constantly challenges even the concept of the character.  I'm plugged into the fiction because I can drive it with my character.  5e, on the other hand, usually isn't focused on the characters, but on some external threat that the characters engage.  The mechanics are less visceral and focus on tactial minutia which leads me to play my character less focused on the needs and desires of the character and more on being tactically sound and making the smart play.

And, none of that is bad.  I actually love 5e because of it's tactical focus on play.  It creates a game that I enjoy, and my players enjoy, because we like solving tactical problems with a strong layer of character thrown in.  Blades, on the other hand, is all character with less tactical play.  It scratches a different itch.  They both have strengths.  I don't see playing solely through the character as a particularly compelling argument for immersion.  If it works for you, though, awesome.


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> I think I'd resent the NPC, but not necessarily the GM. At least, that's my first instinct. I mean, it's OK for a GM in a supers game to have mind-controlling villains, IMO. Sure, there could be Bad GMing (I feel as though I should trademark that) but Bad GMing isn't a requirement for having an NPC/villain/monster charm or dominate a PC.




Interesting, definitely not the answer I expected.  My answer would be that a lady's charm isn't mind control and that this mechanic is treating it as such and thus there is actually no fictional basis for my character to lose agency over his actions which to me would mean that I as the player should also keep agency over choosing my characters actions.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> That's a bit off-center.  A GM in FATE can offer a Compel, and the player cannot refuse it if they don't have FATE points to spend to counter it, but the only thing the GM can Compel are the traits that the player chose for their character that represent the trouble or issue that character has.  In other words, the GM can only compel you to, well, play your character as you defined them.  It is a loss of agency?  Absolutely -- you aren't making the choice to engage in that flaw right now otherwise.  Is it the same loss of agency as a dominate person?  Absolutely not -- you did get a choice in what could be Compelled whereas you do not get any choices with Dominate Person.  Does this distinction matter?  Well, if you're going to be upset at the concept of Compelling and feel it's a usurpation of your right to control your character, then no, not really.  But, in a clear analysis, these things are different.




No, it's not the same thing as Dominate Person. Compelling a character in Fate is the GM reaching in and jerking the character around to tell the GM's story; an illithid Dominating a PC is reaching in and jerking the character around to tell the illithid's story. And yes, the GM is operating the illithid: That's his fricking job, to operate in this case the illithid as it attempts to tell its story.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> I'd say devoting some time to "other games have flaws too" would suffice to put an end to that perception.



That's been talked about quite a bit, you may have missed it.  Pretty much everyone talking about other games points to things they don't do well. 

I can say that before I started playing other games and really embracing the differences, I was defensive about my game of choice and statements that it has flaws.  I thought it was a slam against my choice of entertainment.  It's not.  It's an honest evaluation of the game.  I am now very happy I'm aware of the flaws of 5e, much like I'm happier to know where potholes in the road are.  It's because I can now steer around them.  5e is by no means perfect, but it's still a good game.  Use it for what it does well and you'll have fewer issues.  Use it for things it doesn't do well and you'll have more.  This really shouldn't be a contentious statement.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> That's a bit off-center.  A GM in FATE can offer a Compel, and the player cannot refuse it if they don't have FATE points to spend to counter it, but the only thing the GM can Compel are the traits that the player chose for their character that represent the trouble or issue that character has.  In other words, the GM can only compel you to, well, play your character as you defined them.  It is a loss of agency?  Absolutely -- you aren't making the choice to engage in that flaw right now otherwise.  Is it the same loss of agency as a dominate person?  Absolutely not -- you did get a choice in what could be Compelled whereas you do not get any choices with Dominate Person.  Does this distinction matter?  Well, if you're going to be upset at the concept of Compelling and feel it's a usurpation of your right to control your character, then no, not really.  But, in a clear analysis, these things are different.




IMO, Having agency over what actions some mechanic can force you to do has absolutely no impact on whether you have agency over your chracters actions.  In both cases you don't.  

It seems like your concept of agency is some ever morphing hybrid of every kind of agency imaginable which allows you to muddy the waters by introducing a different type of agency into a discussion about some other type.


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> Interesting, definitely not the answer I expected.  My answer would be that a lady's charm isn't mind control and that this mechanic is treating it as such and thus there is actually no fictional basis for my character to lose agency over his actions which to me would mean that I as the player should also keep agency over choosing my characters actions.




Oh, if the GM wants a given lady to be so charming that it's effectively mind-control, or at least something that uses mechanics similar to charm/dominate magic, that's ... at least a defensible choice. I've played and run enough supers games, where mechanics often end up being put to strange uses, that I wouldn't be bothered by that.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> No, it's not the same thing as Dominate Person. Compelling a character in Fate is the GM reaching in and jerking the character around to tell the GM's story; an illithid Dominating a PC is reaching in and jerking the character around to tell the illithid's story. And yes, the GM is operating the illithid: That's his fricking job, to operate in this case the illithid as it attempts to tell its story.



If your experience is that Compels are about forcing the character into the the GM's story, then either you've played with bad GMs or you played with good GMs that just didn't grok FATE.  This might, perhaps, be colored by your stated preference to only engage the fiction through the player declaring actions for the PC.

To me, having the GM Compel a trait I've chosen for my character is an opportunity to embrace that aspect of my character -- an aspect that is, in part, definitional to my character and totally my choice.  It may not be the smart play in the fiction, but it's still definitely something my character would likely do.  If this doesn't apply, then the Compel is being incorrectly used.

Here are examples of event Compels from FATE SRD:



> Cynere has _Infamous Girl with Sword_ while covertly attending a gladiatorial contest, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, an admirer would recognize her in the stands and make a huge fuss, turning all eyes in the arena her way. Damn her luck.
> 
> Landon has_ I Owe Old Finn Everything_ and is returning to his home village after hearing it was sacked by barbarians, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, Old Finn was captured and taken far into the mountains with their war party. Damn his luck.
> 
> Zird has _Rivals in the Collegia Arcana_ and is attempting to get an audience with their Inner Council, so it makes sense that, unfortunately, his rivals force the Collegia to demand he provide a detailed account of his highly-coveted research to re-establish his relationship with the organization. Damn his luck.




Honestly, these look like things D&D GMs do without any mechanics at all.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> My experience with Blades is that I'm more connected with the character even though it has non-PC centered tools for the player than I am in 5e where I don't.  Fundamentally this is because Blades focuses the game like a laser on things my character cares about and constantly challenges even the concept of the character.  I'm plugged into the fiction because I can drive it with my character.  5e, on the other hand, usually isn't focused on the characters, but on some external threat that the characters engage.  The mechanics are less visceral and focus on tactial minutia which leads me to play my character less focused on the needs and desires of the character and more on being tactically sound and making the smart play.
> 
> And, none of that is bad.  I actually love 5e because of it's tactical focus on play.  It creates a game that I enjoy, and my players enjoy, because we like solving tactical problems with a strong layer of character thrown in.  Blades, on the other hand, is all character with less tactical play.  It scratches a different itch.  They both have strengths.  I don't see playing solely through the character as a particularly compelling argument for immersion.  If it works for you, though, awesome.




Remember that my first impulses on reading through the SRD were to intentionally play Blades badly. Clearly there's some difference between how I connect to characters and how you do. That's ... excellent, actually; as you say--awesome.


----------



## FrogReaver

prabe said:


> Oh, if the GM wants a given lady to be so charming that it's effectively mind-control, or at least something that uses mechanics similar to charm/dominate magic, that's ... at least a defensible choice. I've played and run enough supers games, where mechanics often end up being put to strange uses, that I wouldn't be bothered by that.




I follow.  I think my conception was more of using natural means to charm you, whereas you are picturing the possibility of someone so charming they are efficetively supernaturally charming


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> That's been talked about quite a bit, you may have missed it.  Pretty much everyone talking about other games points to things they don't do well.
> 
> I can say that before I started playing other games and really embracing the differences, I was defensive about my game of choice and statements that it has flaws.  I thought it was a slam against my choice of entertainment.  It's not.  It's an honest evaluation of the game.  I am now very happy I'm aware of the flaws of 5e, much like I'm happier to know where potholes in the road are.  It's because I can now steer around them.  5e is by no means perfect, but it's still a good game.  Use it for what it does well and you'll have fewer issues.  Use it for things it doesn't do well and you'll have more.  This really shouldn't be a contentious statement.




I've not seen anyone mention, flaws of FATE or any of the other games mentioned.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> If your experience is that Compels are about forcing the character into the the GM's story, then either you've played with bad GMs or you played with good GMs that just didn't grok FATE.  This might, perhaps, be colored by your stated preference to only engage the fiction through the player declaring actions for the PC.
> 
> To me, having the GM Compel a trait I've chosen for my character is an opportunity to embrace that aspect of my character -- an aspect that is, in part, definitional to my character and totally my choice.  It may not be the smart play in the fiction, but it's still definitely something my character would likely do.  If this doesn't apply, then the Compel is being incorrectly used.
> 
> Here are examples of event Compels from FATE SRD:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, these look like things D&D GMs do without any mechanics at all.




They look like things I do without a second thought in D&D, with framing scenes and/or instigating events.

I have said--though possibly not in this thread--that GMing Fate has made me a better DM, though I'll never GM Fate again. My preference to leave the characters alone--to not Compel them--really makes me a bad fit, even if I know how the game works; and then the Fate Point Economy breaks down, and the game doesn't work super-well.

Also, as a player I'd rather be surprised by how the world connects to my character, and having an Aspect I expect the GM to Compel doesn't seem likely to be surprising. I dunno how that correlates to how I run 5E, but that's a different question.


----------



## prabe

FrogReaver said:


> I follow.  I think my conception was more of using natural means to charm you, whereas you are picturing the possibility of someone so charming they are efficetively supernaturally charming




That would be different, and really, *really* hard to GM (at least in 5E). As a player, I'm guessing there'd be one or several Insight vs. Deception checks, if she was operating in bad faith. I can see it as easier to buy if she's lying that well than if she's that intoxicating a presence. Again, though, if an NPC manipulates my character into doing something, I'll resent the NPC, not the GM.


----------



## chaochou

S'mon said:


> So board game players have Agency, but traditional RPG players have no agency?



Is this a question? Board game players do. Traditional RPGs is such a loose term as to be meaningless.



S'mon said:


> Rules-bound Kriegsspiel gives Agency but Free Kriegsspiel does not?



Is this a question? Nothing I said precludes Free Kriegspiel players from having agency, definitionally. 



S'mon said:


> For me this is a degenerate definition of Agency that gives rise to derogatory terms such as Mother May I and Magical Tea Party. It fundamentally misunderstands how trad RPGs work and the GM role as judge and referee.




For me this is a degenerate understanding of what I said. I‘ve made precise and clear statements on agency. I don’t see any value, or even comprehension, in your response.


----------



## Lanefan

chaochou said:


> By focusing only on a single instance where the suggested dice roll goes against a participant and extrapolating that the losing participant never gets agency. This is clearly false, like claiming the player whose move it isn’t in chess never has agency.



The chess analogy falls apart once it's noted that while the player whose move it isn't has no agency, the player whose move it is does; and that agency flips back and forth more or less evenly as the game progresses. (I say more or less, as sometimes a move made by one player e.g. checking the king reduce the number of moves available to the responding player; and this that player's agency)



> By claiming that suggesting a participant only has to propose a change to the fiction, even when another has complete veto over it, is sufficient to have agency. This is so obviously false it’s laughable. It’s like claiming that toddlers have agency to get what they want by asking their parents.



The agency isn't around getting what you want; it's around being able to try to get what you want.



> Only where a game has mechanics to ensure that their proposal *can* result in specific outcomes they want, _and irrespective of whether the GM wants or likes that outcome_, does a player have actual agency - not just the fake versions of it so beloved of railroading GMs in this thread.



Agreed in principle, though I'm not sure hard mechanics are required.

That said, though, it all too often comes across, whether intended so or not, that when people say things like "the proposal can result in specific desired outcomes" (hence my bolding of the word above) they really mean, or are trying to say, that the proposal *must* result in the specific desired outcomes. There's a huge difference.

'Can' result implies there's a greater or lesser chance that it cannot.  'Must' result would quickly become degenerate at a very high percentage of tables, and that's what I fight against.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> IMO, Having agency over what actions some mechanic can force you to do has absolutely no impact on whether you have agency over your chracters actions.  In both cases you don't.



If the Compelled action is limited only to things I've chosen to be important for my character, then I have exercised control over my characters actions.  I can only be Compelled to do things I've already chosen.

If I'm Dominated, I have no choice or control over the actions of my character at all.

If I am to make sense of your argument, I can only assume that it's because you're arguing that agency over action declaration is a separate thing.  I understand that you've said this, but aside from your assertion I haven't seen the arguments that support it.  On the other hand, I've supported my characterization of agency as having choice and the ability to see that choice implemented in the fiction.  If I use that framework, then a Compel is leveraging a choice I made in character creation and seeing it implemented in the fiction.  That the action proposal comes from someone other than me is only important if we're accepting your argument that there's a special subset of agency that is declaring actions for your character.  I don't agree that this is severable from the concept of agency.

In other words, we're approaching this from different sets of premises. 



> It seems like your concept of agency is some ever morphing hybrid of every kind of agency imaginable which allows you to muddy the waters by introducing a different type of agency into a discussion about some other type.



No, it's quite firm.  It hasn't changed throughout the thread.  I formed this concept awhile ago, and it's pretty strong.  I have no problem pointing out when agency is denied.  I don't think that's necessarily bad.  Because I'm not arguing from a position that agency=merit, I don't have a stake in defending any given game based on how it treats agency.  I think 5e, for instance, has muddy rules that can lead to all kinds of removal of agency even in good faith play.  I still run it almost every weekend.  I absolutely know that Blades in the Dark severely limits agency.  It does this through play premises and setting and through sharing of authority over characters to some degree.  And many other ways I'm not going to list.  I still love to run Blades in the Dark.  So, yeah, no, I'm not shifting my arguments to defend any particular style of play or game.  That would make agency a useless tool to analyze how a game works.  So, I have no need to shift my arguments.  I certainly do not care that I win an argument with you on the internet.  

So, any confusion about my position is on your end.  It's not moving over here, at all.  As I said in the above section, we appear to be operating on different premises.  I also think we're operating on different goals.  I'm trying to fairly analyze games.  You seem to be looking to support a playstyle as having more agency against a different playstyle.  I don't care.  I care why they've limited agency and how that functions.  And that goes directly to the discussion on Compels in FATE.  These are a collaborative tool to use the character as designed by the player to create new issues in the fiction for the characters to overcome.  They aren't Dominate Person, which just strips agency from one player and transfers it to another.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> If the Compelled action is limited only to things I've chosen to be important for my character, then I have exercised control over my characters actions.  I can only be Compelled to do things I've already chosen.
> 
> If I'm Dominated, I have no choice or control over the actions of my character at all.
> 
> If I am to make sense of your argument, I can only assume that it's because you're arguing that agency over action declaration is a separate thing.  I understand that you've said this, but aside from your assertion I haven't seen the arguments that support it.  On the other hand, I've supported my characterization of agency as having choice and the ability to see that choice implemented in the fiction.  If I use that framework, then a Compel is leveraging a choice I made in character creation and seeing it implemented in the fiction.  That the action proposal comes from someone other than me is only important if we're accepting your argument that there's a special subset of agency that is declaring actions for your character.  I don't agree that this is severable from the concept of agency.
> 
> In other words, we're approaching this from different sets of premises.
> 
> 
> No, it's quite firm.  It hasn't changed throughout the thread.  I formed this concept awhile ago, and it's pretty strong.  I have no problem pointing out when agency is denied.  I don't think that's necessarily bad.  Because I'm not arguing from a position that agency=merit, I don't have a stake in defending any given game based on how it treats agency.  I think 5e, for instance, has muddy rules that can lead to all kinds of removal of agency even in good faith play.  I still run it almost every weekend.  I absolutely know that Blades in the Dark severely limits agency.  It does this through play premises and setting and through sharing of authority over characters to some degree.  And many other ways I'm not going to list.  I still love to run Blades in the Dark.  So, yeah, no, I'm not shifting my arguments to defend any particular style of play or game.  That would make agency a useless tool to analyze how a game works.  So, I have no need to shift my arguments.  I certainly do not care that I win an argument with you on the internet.
> 
> So, any confusion about my position is on your end.  It's not moving over here, at all.  As I said in the above section, we appear to be operating on different premises.  I also think we're operating on different goals.  I'm trying to fairly analyze games.  You seem to be looking to support a playstyle as having more agency against a different playstyle.  I don't care.  I care why they've limited agency and how that functions.  And that goes directly to the discussion on Compels in FATE.  These are a collaborative tool to use the character as designed by the player to create new issues in the fiction for the characters to overcome.  They aren't Dominate Person, which just strips agency from one player and transfers it to another.




please don’t accuse me of bad faith.


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> I've seen a lot of people on the other side state that there are times when loss of agency is okay, and that things like Dominate are one of those ways.  @hawkeyefan has said something similar in this thread.  I've also seen in other threads where people say that any loss of agency ever is not okay.



OK, but what about gain of agency?  Shouldn't that be just as bad? (I ask because nobody ever mentions it)

What;s good for the goose is good for the gander: you-as-player gain agency if your PC Dominates an NPC.

In this case agency is more or less zero-sum: what's lost by one player is gained by another.  Easier to grok in a PvP situation - if Maxperson the Wizard Dominates Lanefan the Fighter, you gain exactly as much agency as I lose.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> They look like things I do without a second thought in D&D, with framing scenes and/or instigating events.
> 
> I have said--though possibly not in this thread--that GMing Fate has made me a better DM, though I'll never GM Fate again. My preference to leave the characters alone--to not Compel them--really makes me a bad fit, even if I know how the game works; and then the Fate Point Economy breaks down, and the game doesn't work super-well.
> 
> Also, as a player I'd rather be surprised by how the world connects to my character, and having an Aspect I expect the GM to Compel doesn't seem likely to be surprising. I dunno how that correlates to how I run 5E, but that's a different question.



I'd like to really drill down on the first sentence.  As you and I both said, these examples from the FATE SRD really look like things a D&D GM just decides.  That's a big indication of the difference in how FATE frames things.  In D&D, a player that had one of those statements attached to their character has either written it into their backstory or had it occur in play.  On that front, they're pretty much the same as the FATE character.  However, in D&D, the GM unilaterally decides when those things enter play as complications.  In FATE, it's more of a negotiation.  The GM proposes the complication, based on the trait, to the player.  If the player agrees that this looks like something that would be true, they earn a FATE point.  If they do not, they must pay a FATE point.  This is pure incentive to lean into the traits you've chosen for your character.  True, if you've spent all of your FATE points (presumably in doing awesome things), you cannot decline the Compel, but you're still going to be incentivized with a FATE point to lean into the traits you've chosen for you character.

If the GM is using Compels to push the story to result how they want it to, then the GM has missed the point.  FATE is about making play about the characters, good and bad parts, and Compels are just ways to enable that.

That said, I see how the GM proposing actions for your character or negotiating a scene change with the player for their character can be jarring or not fun mechanics for everyone.  That's fine.  You do not have to like FATE, and I'm not asking you (or anyone else) to do so nor am I pitching FATE to you for reconsideration.  I, personally, am not terribly fond of FATE -- I find it a bit too muddy for my tastes (which is funny because I like 5e, which is also muddy but in different ways).  But, we should be discussing how games do things absent preferences.  And FATE Compels are very distant from D&D Dominates except in very grossly simplified ways, like both remove agency to some extent.  That's not a useful comparison statement.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> please don’t accuse me of bad faith.



As I absolutely did nothing of the kind, I will file this away for the future as something to continue to not do.

If you mean pointing out that you haven't established a framework to support your assertion that agency over character action declarations is a separate thing from general agency, that's not an accusation of bad faith.  It's an invitation.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> please don’t accuse me of bad faith.






Ovinomancer said:


> As I absolutely did nothing of the kind, I will file this away for the future as something to continue to not do.
> 
> If you mean pointing out that you haven't established a framework to support your assertion that agency over character action declarations is a separate thing from general agency, that's not an accusation of bad faith.  It's an invitation.




Let me be more clear:  I do not think you are arguing in bad faith.  I would not say so.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> Let me be more clear:  I do not think you are arguing in bad faith.  I would not say so.




Thank you, but telling me I’m arguing to support my playstyle is kind of the same thing, right?


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> Thank you, but telling me I’m arguing to support my playstyle is kind of the same thing, right?



Goodness, no.  It being in favor of your playstyle a dishonest thing to do?  I certainly wouldn't ever think so.  It's a pretty normal thing to do.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> Goodness, no.  It being in favor of your playstyle a dishonest thing to do?  I certainly wouldn't ever think so.  It's a pretty normal thing to do.




to me it would be so I apologize for taking your intent wrong.

I am after the truth, not support for a particular playstyle. I am also for challenging your framework as I think there’s a better for explaining what we are seeing.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> I'd like to really drill down on the first sentence.  As you and I both said, these examples from the FATE SRD really look like things a D&D GM just decides.  That's a big indication of the difference in how FATE frames things.  In D&D, a player that had one of those statements attached to their character has either written it into their backstory or had it occur in play.  On that front, they're pretty much the same as the FATE character.  However, in D&D, the GM unilaterally decides when those things enter play as complications.  In FATE, it's more of a negotiation.  The GM proposes the complication, based on the trait, to the player.  If the player agrees that this looks like something that would be true, they earn a FATE point.  If they do not, they must pay a FATE point.  This is pure incentive to lean into the traits you've chosen for your character.  True, if you've spent all of your FATE points (presumably in doing awesome things), you cannot decline the Compel, but you're still going to be incentivized with a FATE point to lean into the traits you've chosen for you character.




If I'm playing, chances are I've used up all my Fate points failing to do awesome things, or at best not sucking, because dice and I do not get along. But that's not super-relevant.



Ovinomancer said:


> If the GM is using Compels to push the story to result how they want it to, then the GM has missed the point.  FATE is about making play about the characters, good and bad parts, and Compels are just ways to enable that.




In my opinion, from having looked through a few Fate books, and having run Fate for a while and having played it a few times, Fate makes a lot of noise about being about the characters, but it's really about the story; they're not the same thing, and Fate seems to me to be entirely willing to throw the characters under the bus for the sake of the story.



Ovinomancer said:


> That said, I see how the GM proposing actions for your character or negotiating a scene change with the player for their character can be jarring or not fun mechanics for everyone.  That's fine.  You do not have to like FATE, and I'm not asking you (or anyone else) to do so nor am I pitching FATE to you for reconsideration.  I, personally, am not terribly fond of FATE -- I find it a bit too muddy for my tastes (which is funny because I like 5e, which is also muddy but in different ways).  But, we should be discussing how games do things absent preferences.  And FATE Compels are very distant from D&D Dominates except in very grossly simplified ways, like both remove agency to some extent.  That's not a useful comparison statement.




I actually don't disagree with you that Fate Compels are dissimilar to a D&D PC being charmed or dominated. I've answered @FrogReaver a few times explaining how and why I see them as being wildly different.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> to me it would be so I apologize for taking your intent wrong.
> 
> I am after the truth, not support for a particular playstyle. I am also for challenging your framework as I think there’s a better for explaining what we are seeing.



Which is?  This difference is that I come to the conclusion that agency was abridged in the OP because the player attempted an action that could have multiple outcomes with the fiction as established and the GM's notes, but the GM selected a specific outcome that thwarts the action.  We don't know the player's intent, so this is a missing variable.  If the player wanted to move to a fight, then this action by the GM was essentially saying yes.  If it was anything else, then agency is abridged.

Your argument is that there's a division of agency, one of which is agency over declaring actions.  In this framework, agency over declaring actions isn't abridged because the player was allowed to declare the action.  Therefore agency wasn't abridged.

The issues I have with your argument (and correct it where it is wrong, please, I've done my best) is that I disagree that it's a valid to separate agency over declaring actions from agency in general.  I've followed this up by showing the definition of agency used by many to be not only making choices but also having the ability to see those choices come true.  Not guarantee, but ability.  In this framework, declaring an action is a necessary but not sufficient part of agency.  If I cannot declare actions, then I have no agency.  If I can, then we have to continue to look to see if agency is sustained.  My framework includes yours, it just continues to go further.  Applying this to the OP, we can see that the player did indeed declare the action -- so we're good so far, a choice was made and a proposal was made.  However, the GM decided unilaterally to say no.  The player has no ability to see the declared action come true -- no chance at all.  And so, agency is not present.

And, that's not, in and of itself, bad.  It just is.  We need to go to look to see if this instance of play enforces the play goals the table wants or if it runs counter to them.  I can't say if the action was good or bad for the OP's table, although indications are that it was bad as at least one player expressed unhappiness.  I can say it would be bad at my table because it wouldn't enforce my table's play goals -- specifically mine, as I strive to avoid hidden dead-ends in my prep and play.  That's just my preference.

Secondly, even if we do accept your premise that agency over action declaration is a separate thing, we still need to evaluate the separate agency involved in the resolution.  If we accept that agency is fulfilled at the action declaration stage, that doesn't mean other kinds of agency were denied.  In this case, the GM choosing to auto-fail the action means that the player has no agency over the fiction -- again, there's no chance this action could ever succeed due to the GM's appraisal of the fact pattern.  So I could, accepting your argument as true, say that agency over action declaration is present and uninhibited, but I would be wrong to say that all agency is present and uninhibited in the play example.

Finally, if we make and accept the argument that only agency over the character's action declarations matters, then we're left in the position that a railroad has exactly as much player agency as a fully-open sandbox (to stay with D&D styles of play).  Both involve the same amount of being able to declare actions for your character.

In summation, even if your argument is accepted that agency means being able to make action declarations for your PC, it has some pretty major hurdles to overcome to be a meaningful tool to evaluate how games work.  On the other hand, my framework handles all of this without having to invoke separate bundles of agency and do separate analyses.  The key component to my framework, though, is _that it is not a value statement_.   The value regarding the reduction or increase of player agency is if it meets the play goals of the game.  I'd clearly say that GM deciding auto-failure is an important tool in 5e to meet the play goals and play structure of the game.  I can't say that saying no is a bad action absent context.  I find a tool it better when it can make an assessment that is both differentiating (which I don't find yours to be) and nonjudgemental.  A tool should be informative, like a ruler.  I can measure a piece of wood and I'll get an answer from a ruler.  I might not like the answer, though, which is a value judgement that ruler didn't make.


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> OK, but what about gain of agency?  Shouldn't that be just as bad? (I ask because nobody ever mentions it)
> 
> What;s good for the goose is good for the gander: you-as-player gain agency if your PC Dominates an NPC.
> 
> In this case agency is more or less zero-sum: what's lost by one player is gained by another.  Easier to grok in a PvP situation - if Maxperson the Wizard Dominates Lanefan the Fighter, you gain exactly as much agency as I lose.



I'm not really gaining agency, though.  My capacity to declare actions to affect the fiction is unchanged.  What has changed is that my have another tool to do it with. Before I had fireball, and a bunch of other spells.  Now I have those and this guy over there named Lanefan as an option for a while. 

It's more like you and I both being free, then I lock you in jail.  I've taken your freedom, but I don't get extra freedom in return.


----------



## Maxperson

Ovinomancer said:


> Um, if you can't say that a game has flaws (and all games do), then the claim is that a game is perfect.  Surely you aren't advancing that?
> 
> As @hawkeyefan had repeatedly said, he both runs and enjoys running 5e.  I also run and enjoy running 5e.  It has flaws.  So what?  Do you need it to not to?



Yes, 5e has flaws.  No, having descriptions isn't one of them.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> If I'm playing, chances are I've used up all my Fate points failing to do awesome things, or at best not sucking, because dice and I do not get along. But that's not super-relevant.



Oh, tell me about it.  I only crit when the party is facing mooks that suddenly turn into supermen because my dice go hot.  Meanwhile, BBEGs roll 1's and 2's.  


> In my opinion, from having looked through a few Fate books, and having run Fate for a while and having played it a few times, Fate makes a lot of noise about being about the characters, but it's really about the story; they're not the same thing, and Fate seems to me to be entirely willing to throw the characters under the bus for the sake of the story.



I honestly see this as the general issue of people not trying to play the game as the rules present but instead how they think a game should go.  You see this even in D&D, where people just know how to run D&D and don't really bother to find out how the newest edition does things.  I think a lot of people play FATE with a mindset from a different game, and not one that embraces the rules of FATE.  I also think there's a lot of GMs that like to run games about their story rather than the characters'.  This isn't at all limited to FATE.

But, it does lead into my dislike of FATE.  You can play a game in FATE that is about the GM's story, or that uses the mechanics to force players into Compels rather than make them a fun part of the game, and the system doesn't fight you hard enough.  It's muddy enough that the system can support this kind of play without it being obvious it shouldn't.  This makes discussions about what games do hard when FATE comes up because FATE isn't super clear about what it does and a lot of people have had bad interactions with it.  I was told, in another thread, that one poster played FATE exactly like a D&D dungeon crawl and just didn't bother with Compels at all.  I was stunned, but, when I looked at the system again, I saw how you could do that.  You have to ignore some things, but not too many, and the system doesn't fight back in obvious ways. 

Contrast this with Blades, which will absolutely fail you if you try to run a D&D-esque dungeon crawl.

So, I fully understand how you've come to your understanding of FATE, and that's without even considering the differences in our play preferences.



> I actually don't disagree with you that Fate Compels are dissimilar to a D&D PC being charmed or dominated. I've answered @FrogReaver a few times explaining how and why I see them as being wildly different.



Cool.


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> I'm not really gaining agency, though.  My capacity to declare actions to affect the fiction is unchanged.  What has changed is that my have another tool to do it with. Before I had fireball, and a bunch of other spells.  Now I have those and this guy over there named Lanefan as an option for a while.



Which has more or less doubled your ability to express agency over - well, anything; while reducing mine to near zero other than what you specifically permit me to have.



> It's more like you and I both being free, then I lock you in jail.  I've taken your freedom, but I don't get extra freedom in return.



Wrong analogy.

It's more like you've taken my stuff, meaning now you've got two people's worth of resources while I have none.


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> Which has more or less doubled your ability to express agency over - well, anything; while reducing mine to near zero other than what you specifically permit me to have.




Not really.  As a high level wizard I have tons of spells, but can only use one per round.  Having more options doesn't give you more agency.  It just gives you more options.  It's just that now among those options I have your abilities to choose from.



> It's more like you've taken my stuff, meaning now you've got two people's worth of resources while I have none.



I still can't use it all at once, so my agency is the same.


----------



## Lanefan

Maxperson said:


> Not really.  As a high level wizard I have tons of spells, but can only use one per round.  Having more options doesn't give you more agency.  It just gives you more options.  It's just that now among those options I have your abilities to choose from.



And, don't forget, my turn on which to choose them, as well as your own.


----------



## Manbearcat

Lanefan said:


> OK, but what about gain of agency?  Shouldn't that be just as bad? (I ask because nobody ever mentions it).




I mentioned it upthread when I discussed BECMI/RC and sandbox hexcrawls.  More specifically, how the fundamentals of the delve/crawl become muted (and in some key cases, into extinction) because characters become able to obviate obstacles/conflicts (Spellcasters through spell breadth/potency) and essential rules interactions (mundane characters through Treasure like Heward's Handy Haversack et al) such that the integrity of the premise of play becomes compromised.

This is a well-known phenomenon in D&D and why Moldvay Basic and Torchbearer are the models for delving (because the rules interactions are perfect and agency is sufficiently constrained to keep the struggle online).


----------



## Manbearcat

@prabe

Here is where I think your analysis of Fate hits a snag.  I also wonder if it intersects with the conversation about mundane "mind control."

1)  The Aspect/Compel tech in Fate has been cribbed (at least in spirit) by many other games.  At its core, it boils down to (a) player signals to table-at-large that they want _thematic thing x_ to be a cornerstone of their character's conflict (both subversive and a bulwark...as cornerstones tend to be), (b) hence _test this thing_, (c) hence, I accept that the collision of (a) and (b) will likely lead to a severe challenge to the conception of my PC up-to-and-including an evolution where _thematic thing x_ changes (perhaps flipping on its head entirely).

2)  Neuro/cognitive science consensus has accreted around the theory that human agency is considerably less than what individual human perception believes it to be and what civilization is premised upon.

3)  I not only don't bat an eye about the idea of a combination of exogenous (social pressure, circumstance) and endogenous (the endocrine system, someone's conception of themself, perception bias, genes that have been turned on with no will being in the mix) leading to a loss of agency in mundane circumstances (an American PoW in a Chinese PoW camp falling prey to the slow trickle of "re-education" machinery, someone becoming smitten by another person to the point of behavior they would consider deranged upon introspection, a false confession after someone has been in a traumatic situation and then leaned on for 36 hours by the police, a person who is typically lacking in aggression and physicality finding themselves kicking a downed person when incited mob behavior and social pressure converge, someone who is simultaneously riddled with extreme self-doubt but saddled with an extreme sense of purpose, etc)...but the visceral experience of habitation becomes increased in proportion.

If I'm playing a real person (even a hero) who could fall prey to any number of the mundane agency-stealing moments of life (which every_single_person can have their perceived autonomy taken from them...because biology)...and I have it imposed on me (as happens in real life...its not a choice), that enhances immersion for me.  Autonomous pantomiming falling prey to something (addiction or any of the things I mentioned above)?  I struggle to find how that could remotely be immersive?  How is it rewarding and/or bulwarking to one's conception of self when the integral "internal struggle to overcome" isn't actually integral or sincere...it (the struggle and the output of that struggle) becomes borderline farce (from a first principles perspective).


----------



## Maxperson

Lanefan said:


> And, don't forget, my turn on which to choose them, as well as your own.



Not really.  If you want total control, it takes your action.  If you want to give a simple command and not take total control, it's free, but you don't have access to everything at that point.  It's still not increasing PLAYER agency, though. The PC, sure.  It can do more.  The player, no.  The player is still affecting the fiction just the same as before.  Only the player who has lost control and cannot affect the fiction at all has an agency change.


----------



## pemerton

S'mon said:


> "Non skilled play" or "non Gamist" seems much broader though, encompassing for instance railroad gaming with pre written story, as well as Pemertonian Scene Framing and heavy Narrarivist Exploration of Premise, right through to non RPG round robin story creation games.



Agreed, but that's why I've been using it.

I'm looking for a term that can cover those things, and therefore can say things like: If you want to do that particular sort of RPGing, you might be better of with this set of techniques (eg scene framing) rather than this other set of techniques (eg fudging and railroading).

The previous paragraph rests on my enduring belief that there are some people who are trying to get something out of RPGing - "story", for lack of a better word - without having quite the right set of techniques.


----------



## pemerton

FrogReaver said:


> To answer the first question I need to know whether it's that you don't know of any games that ever limit a players ability to declare their character's actions?  Or whether you think that games do that but everyone likes that part of those games?



Off the top of my head, the main RPG I can think of that regularly limits the ability of players to declare actions for their PCs is D&D - via mechanics like domination, paralsysis, unconsciousness, etc. But obviously D&D is very popular.

There are RPGs that in many ways are inspired by D&D - eg Rolemaster - that have simllar mechanics.

But I don't think D&D is what yu have in mind. That's why I'm curious about whay you do have in mind.


----------



## pemerton

FrogReaver said:


> Why is this spell acceptable where non-magical implementations of reducing player agency over character actions tend to be found unacceptable?  What is the difference?



There's no difference. That's why, in 4e D&D, there is a monster - I think a type of chained demon - that is able to establish a (mechanical) dominate effect because (in the fiction) it has wrapped its chains around the PC and is manipulating the PC like a marionette.

EDIT: I looked it up: the creature is a Gorechain Devil.

From p 65 of the MM2: "These shambling hulks . . . wrap[] their soon-to-be-dead foes in gore-encrusted spiked chains and control[] them like puppets".

The mechanical implementation of this fiction is:

*Gorechain Takeover* (standard, recharge 5,6)​Melee 3: +15 vs Fortitude, 3d6+5 damage, and the target is dominated (save ends).​The dominated condition ends if the target is more than 3 squares away frm the gorechain devil at the start of the target's turn.​


FrogReaver said:


> The Dominate Person spell is an in-fiction method where a character loses control over himself.  That is, in fictional terms such a character has no agency over himself.  In other words, the loss in player agency over character actions corresponds to a fictional state where the character has lost agency over his own actions.  That correspondence is what makes the loss of player agency over character actions acceptable for many people and the lack of that correspondence is what makes them find it unacceptable.



What is an example you have in mind of "lack of that correspndence"?

EG in Traveller, if your PC fails a morale check you either surrender or flee. That's because your PC has lost control of him-/herself.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> I said I believe it is possible, because I don't believe any game system is foolproof. I do not know that I have played any published games that were so explicit about "Say yes or roll the dice" so I don't have any play examples of good-faith GMing in the style (though I'm sure they exist).



This is closely connected to the discussion with @Campbell and @S'mon about different sorts of RPGing.

_Railroading _is a vice of story-oriented RPGing. My view is that it doesn't really make sense to worry about a Moldvay-esque, OSR-ish game being a railroad. The vices of that sort of RPGing are killer dungeons, Monty Haul etc; and related vices are being a "viking hat" GM, etc. 

If a game is being run using "say 'yes' or roll the dice" there is no risk of railroading. Players will have agency - it's inherent in that approach. The risk of that sort of game is _boring scene-framing_ and _weak consequences_.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> He also has anger issues.  We know both.  What is the exact armor class based on "The dragon is armored."?  If you can't tell me, then it is also vague and you don't have all the information, just like when told about the baron's anger issues.
> 
> High.




I mean.....AC is a thing in the game. Anger class isn't. This is my point. mechanics exist for the combat in order to make things clearly understood. Otherwise, it would be like playing war with your friends in the backyard as kids. "I shot you!"- "NO! I shot you first!!"

No mechanics seem to have been deployed to resolve the insult. This is my point. The DM has decided by fiat that this is impossible, and so no roll is needed. 

How does a player assess this kind of situation? The reasoning is hidden, and whether or not mechanics will even be used is unclear.



Maxperson said:


> It's not infinite.  That's just silly.  The dragon has a high armor class.  The baron has a high anger class.  We know both and can make informed decisions about those things.




I disagree. Again, this is my point about the Baron's temperament....the PCs have been given unclear information consisting of narrative details that we cannot understand if or how they translate into game mechanics. 

So when the DM says "The Baron is mad, and believes that his festivals of the sun keep his village safe, and he punishes the townsfolk who challenge him." Is this a cue for something the PCs are meant to overcome, such as a high AC? Or is this a cue that the Baron cannot be reasoned with at all? Is it a cue that great care needs to be taken in interacting with him?

You'll insist that it's the last. My point is that there's no way for the players to know that.



Maxperson said:


> He can also just decide that you miss your swing.  You only get to roll when the outcome is in doubt.  You can declare your attack, then the DM narrates the outcome, calling for a roll if the outcome is uncertain(PHB page 7).




Yes, this is a big part of the problem.



Maxperson said:


> Just by looking at them?




Sure, why not? Do you think the PCs look like villagers?



Maxperson said:


> No more than any other game where the DM is describing things.  D&D doesn't lend itself to that mistake any more or less than those others.  It's a person mistake, not a system mistake.
> 
> And every other game where a DM, or player for that matter, has to describe anything at all.




It's not just the description....I believe that a gap could develop in that way for many games, if not all. 

It's that the players are so reliant on the DM or all iin game info. They have very little way to introduce anything of their own. Combined with potentially unclear mechanics.....mechanics that may not even be used....that's a potentially bad combo. It can be dealt with and avoided.....but it's something to be aware of.



Maxperson said:


> Other come into effect at that point.  The attempt was to jump the canyon, so the failure only = did not succeed in jumping over the canyon.  However, since you are now suspended over air, the falling rules come into play.




Who says you're suspended over air? My character realized he couldn't make it, and skidded to a halt at the ledge. 

The DM absolutely narrates consequences.



Maxperson said:


> 5e doesn't have broken bones, though.  There's no mechanism to even heal it.  If you were to rule that the PC breaks his foot after a failed attempt to break down the door, are you going to just fix the foot after a night's rest?  If not, how much time is it going to take?  Wounds don't give penalties.  Are you going to penalize the PC for the broken foot?  He can't walk on it.  He can't fight effectively with it.  What's that penalty going to look like?
> 
> It's pretty clear that the DM is stepping outside of the rules to break the foot.




A penalty to speed of -10 feet and disadvantage on athletics checks until some kind of magical healing is applied, or until 5 long rests? I mean, that seems fairly reasonable, no? I'd personally prefer that a DM use his judgment in this way rather than to simply shut down certain actions with auto-fail.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> How did the character in your game of Prince Valiant earn their Storyteller Certificate?



Here is the general rule for certificates and for gold stars (Prince Valiant pp 55-56):

[The Storyteller] may award a Certificate to any player as a reward for good acting or other reasons. . . . Storytellers can use gold stars to reward good players.​
In our game the certificate and gold star are merged together, in that one possible use of a certificate is to add a gold star to th PC sheet.

In our most recent session, one certificate was awarded, when a player's PC prayed in Hagia Sophia )player action declaration) and had a vision and had the worst of his wounds heal (consequence). The last time that player earned a certificate was when he introduced himself to a traveller (action declartaion) and the traveller recognised him from tales of his exploits (consequence).

My general principle is that if I think a moment of play is particularly exciting, amusing, or evocative of the character, I award a certificate. In 13 sessions I think 10 or so have been awarded. Currently one is unspent.

Also, I found this looking for the above (pp 40-41):

If the task of Storyteller becomes burdensome, most likely through disagreement from the players, something is wrong. Stop the game and have a discussion with the players about what they expect. Remain open to their opinions. Remember, this is a shared fantasy. . . .

Respect is critical to play. The storyteller must respect the players as well as vice versa. No cooperation is possible without respect. This is not an opportunity to lord your knowledge over others - it is a sharing. This is not an opportunity to abuse the characters with your power - no one will play if you do.

Ask the other players their opinions in sticky situations. The cooperative effort will be fortified. You are not trying to be omniscient - the Storyteller is a guide.​
This is the sort of thing I have in mind in talking about the "credibility test" being a consensual rather than unilateral matter.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> @prabe
> 
> Here is where I think your analysis of Fate hits a snag.  I also wonder if it intersects with the conversation about mundane "mind control."




It might do, but maybe not in the way/s you think. As has emerged elsewhere in this thread, I have remarkably little problem with mind-control effects inside the game (psychic super-villains, mental parasites, whatever). It's when they come from outside the fiction--when the GM or another player starts reaching into my character--that I get angry.



Manbearcat said:


> 1)  The Aspect/Compel tech in Fate has been cribbed (at least in spirit) by many other games.  At its core, it boils down to (a) player signals to table-at-large that they want _thematic thing x_ to be a cornerstone of their character's conflict (both subversive and a bulwark...as cornerstones tend to be), (b) hence _test this thing_, (c) hence, I accept that the collision of (a) and (b) will likely lead to a severe challenge to the conception of my PC up-to-and-including an evolution where _thematic thing x_ changes (perhaps flipping on its head entirely).




I think the system of incentives in the game argue against it being as much about challenging the player's conception of the character as you seem to think. Fate Points are too valuable to ever turn one down, so there's a powerful incentive to inflict more and more badness on your character (or perhaps more accurately to allow the GM to).



Manbearcat said:


> 2)  Neuro/cognitive science consensus has accreted around the theory that human agency is considerably less than what individual human perception believes it to be and what civilization is premised upon.




Yeah, people have less control over themselves than they think, but I've seen stuff about the neuroscience (which isn't at all my field) and it's my understanding there are holes in that thinking, at least the parts of it based on what I'll describe as weirdness in event timing (the bit about a finger moving before the impulse to move it).



Manbearcat said:


> 3)  I not only don't bat an eye about the idea of a combination of exogenous (social pressure, circumstance) and endogenous (the endocrine system, someone's conception of themself, perception bias, genes that have been turned on with no will being in the mix) leading to a loss of agency in mundane circumstances (an American PoW in a Chinese PoW camp falling prey to the slow trickle of "re-education" machinery, someone becoming smitten by another person to the point of behavior they would consider deranged upon introspection, a false confession after someone has been in a traumatic situation and then leaned on for 36 hours by the police, a person who is typically lacking in aggression and physicality finding themselves kicking a downed person when incited mob behavior and social pressure converge, someone who is simultaneously riddled with extreme self-doubt but saddled with an extreme sense of purpose, etc)...but the visceral experience of habitation becomes increased in proportion.
> 
> If I'm playing a real person (even a hero) who could fall prey to any number of the mundane agency-stealing moments of life (which every_single_person can have their perceived autonomy taken from them...because biology)...and I have it imposed on me (as happens in real life...its not a choice), that enhances immersion for me.  Autonomous pantomiming falling prey to something (addiction or any of the things I mentioned above)?  I struggle to find how that could remotely be immersive?  How is it rewarding and/or bulwarking to one's conception of self when the integral "internal struggle to overcome" isn't actually integral or sincere...it (the struggle and the output of that struggle) becomes borderline farce (from a first principles perspective).




If I'm playing a character in a TRPG, I don't particularly want things like that imposed from outside the fiction. It stops feeling like my character against the world and starts feeling like me, the player, against the GM.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> I mean.....AC is a thing in the game. Anger class isn't. This is my point. mechanics exist for the combat in order to make things clearly understood. Otherwise, it would be like playing war with your friends in the backyard as kids. "I shot you!"- "NO! I shot you first!!"
> 
> No mechanics seem to have been deployed to resolve the insult. This is my point. The DM has decided by fiat that this is impossible, and so no roll is needed.




AC is there to modify the difficulty of the challenge.  The primary way to gain exp in D&D is from combat, so much of the game is set up around that.  

It's also not true that no mechanics were deployed to resolve the insult.  The game mechanic of "The DM decides whether something is an auto success, auto failure, or uncertain." was employed.  A mechanic is not required to be random.



> How does a player assess this kind of situation? The reasoning is hidden, and whether or not mechanics will even be used is unclear.




The same way as vague armor class.  We are a social people.  We know the most likely results of insulting a despot who is easily triggered by insults.  One in which they've been told stories about how he has acted. These players likely had a more accurate understanding of what would be the likely result of that insult than if they had been told, "The dragon is armored."



> I disagree. Again, this is my point about the Baron's temperament....the PCs have been given unclear information consisting of narrative details that we cannot understand if or how they translate into game mechanics.




At this point all I can is that I and my players don't seem to have any trouble whatsoever understanding these narrative details when they are described to us.  I don't understand why you have so many issues with it.



> So when the DM says "The Baron is mad, and believes that his festivals of the sun keep his village safe, and he punishes the townsfolk who challenge him." Is this a cue for something the PCs are meant to overcome, such as a high AC? Or is this a cue that the Baron cannot be reasoned with at all? Is it a cue that great care needs to be taken in interacting with him?




It's a very strong cue not to challenge him on the festival of the sun.  It's also a cue to be very careful with what you say and how you say it, because........insane.  It's further a cue to avoid talking to him at all, since.....insane.  

I'd also say that a player insulting such a personage is also giving the rest of the table the cue of......insane. 



> You'll insist that it's the last. My point is that there's no way for the players to know that.




I know it.  It's pretty darn obvious, because......insane.



> Sure, why not? Do you think the PCs look like villagers?




Nope.  Neither do his guards, though.  I see no reason that looks should clue him in that they are stronger than his guards, which outnumber the PCs.



> Who says you're suspended over air? My character realized he couldn't make it, and skidded to a halt at the ledge.




Then he didn't make the attempt to jump the chasm.  He wisely aborted his attempt.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> Here is the general rule for certificates and for gold stars (Prince Valiant pp 55-56):
> 
> [The Storyteller] may award a Certificate to any player as a reward for good acting or other reasons. . . . Storytellers can use gold stars to reward good players.​
> In our game the certificate and gold star are merged together, in that one possible use of a certificate is to add a gold star to th PC sheet.




Thank you for the explanation. I don't know if I was clear, but as reward for good play (a paraphrase) is also a possible source for Hero Points in Mutants and Masterminds. (Which seems like at least a partial parallel, which is a way to help me understand.)



pemerton said:


> In our most recent session, one certificate was awarded, when a player's PC prayed in Hagia Sophia )player action declaration) and had a vision and had the worst of his wounds heal (consequence). The last time that player earned a certificate was when he introduced himself to a traveller (action declartaion) and the traveller recognised him from tales of his exploits (consequence).




You described the Certificate earlier as an auto-win. Are there limitations or restrictions on that? Also ... clearly there's something in the fiction that led the PC to pray in Hagia Sophia and introduce himself, so the player could declare those actions expecting those results to be among the possible consequences? I figure there's some elision happening, there, because I don't see the recognition as described as a consequence I'd expect of an introduction, but I'll gladly admit that I don't know your table, and I don't know the game, and the way my mind works would probably cause problems for everyone--most of all me--if I were to play it.



pemerton said:


> My general principle is that if I think a moment of play is particularly exciting, amusing, or evocative of the character, I award a certificate. In 13 sessions I think 10 or so have been awarded. Currently one is unspent.




That's not an unreasonable set of criteria. As a GM I worry about playing favorites with something like that, but that's about my failings--not anyone else's.



pemerton said:


> Also, I found this looking for the above (pp 40-41):
> 
> If the task of Storyteller becomes burdensome, most likely through disagreement from the players, something is wrong. Stop the game and have a discussion with the players about what they expect. Remain open to their opinions. Remember, this is a shared fantasy. . . .​​Respect is critical to play. The storyteller must respect the players as well as vice versa. No cooperation is possible without respect. This is not an opportunity to lord your knowledge over others - it is a sharing. This is not an opportunity to abuse the characters with your power - no one will play if you do.​​Ask the other players their opinions in sticky situations. The cooperative effort will be fortified. You are not trying to be omniscient - the Storyteller is a guide.​
> This is the sort of thing I have in mind in talking about the "credibility test" being a consensual rather than unilateral matter.




That doesn't sound like horrible general GMing advice, really. The only thing I'd maybe have an issue with the "The Storyteller is a guide." It sounds more like the GM choosing the path of the story than I think fits--in your games or in mine--but there's very probably some context I'm missing.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> Wouldn't allowing a player a say in whether his own declaration was credible bring back one of the problems that having a GM is supposed to solve?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> What I'm saying is that there's not a lot of difference between "the GM [not the player] says no" and "the table [not the player] says no."
> 
> <snip>
> 
> My point in quoting the 5E DMG at you is that a DM in 5E who doesn't run decisions by the table for concensus isn't necessarily operating in bad faith. They're just doing what the rules tell them to do.



I'm not talking about "bad faith" GMing. I'm talking about what sort of GMing can help make for satisfying RPGing in a non-OSR-ish context.

I think there is a big difference between the GM says no and the table says no. The player is a participant at the table, and hence table conensus is a result of the player's exercise of agency.

I'm not sure what problem you think having a player participate in establishing credibility will give rise to. In my experience it helps generate and reinforce a sense of immersion in the shared fiction.



prabe said:


> Fate literally gives the players the ability to change the facts of a scene by spending a Fate Point, in a way that is explicitly not limited by what their characters can do. It's more like a fourth-wall-breaking cartoon (such as Duck Amuck) where there is animation of an animator's eraser and pencil changing the scene around the characters. That seems pretty explicitly to be both player agency and narrative authority.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If a player successfully kicks down a door, that changes the fiction; some games (some tables) have the player narrate the door flying open in the requisite cloud of splinters, others have the GM do so. In Fate I have specifically asked a player (after a relevant roll) "What's going on in this town? Tell me [some number, I think three] things." That is very specifically about narrative authority, I think (though you might prefer a different term for it.





Ovinomancer said:


> However, when discussing the concept at a high level rather than from the within the frame of how you play, it's a stumbling block for understanding.  I can't speak for @pemerton, but I certainly don't see use of a FATE point to add some fiction to a scene, or leveraging a Flashback in Blades as somehow special or set aside from declaring PC actions in pursuit of player agency.  They're all just tools in the toolbox.  There's nothing inherently special about declaring actions for your PC that elevates it to a higher tier of relevance.  Granted, the focus of most RPGs is to inhabit a character, so it's certainly going to be an almost required tool in play, and often the most common tool.  But it's not the only tool and it's commonality doesn't mean other tools shouldn't be considered equally in looking at how a player can make choices and realize those choices about the in-game fiction.



I agree with Ovinomancer and would go further: this is very often about what the PC is doing.

A flashback is about something the PC did. _What tales have you heard of this place? _centres the character as the recipient of information. _Is there a chandelier for me to swing on? _is in effect an action declaration (_I look for a chandelier)_. Spending a point to make these sorts of things true is just auto-success.



prabe said:


> All right. In principle--as in, it would seem to be to be by-the-book--a GM in Fate can place a Compel on a character whose player has no Fate Points, and because it costs a Fate Point to turn down a Compel, the player would have no way to refuse it--as I remember the rules, the player isn't even allowed to use that Fate Point in a check generated by that Compel. It is in principle possible for a Compel to be about a character's actions. (The example I saw floated was using a Compel to force a PC to steal something from their employer.) I can think of at least one player who violently dislikes that. (Hint: It's @prabe )



I've never played or GMed Fate. Is it considered good GMing practice to compel someone when they have no Fate point? My gut feel is that the more conventional thing would be to compel them to tempt them into spending their last point.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I'm not talking about "bad faith" GMing. I'm talking about what sort of GMing can help make for satisfying RPGing in a non-OSR-ish context.
> 
> I think there is a big difference between the GM says no and the table says no. The player is a participant at the table, and hence table conensus is a result of the player's exercise of agency.
> 
> I'm not sure what problem you think having a player participate in establishing credibility will give rise to. In my experience it helps generate and reinforce a sense of immersion in the shared fiction.





I worry about the player maybe explicitly having a dog in the fight, so to speak, especially if that player was the one who proposed the action in question. I mean, even if the player isn't advocating hard for his character, it seems reasonable that he thinks it's credible and that he wants it to happen.

I don't see the difference between the table saying no and the GM saying no as being as substantial as you do. I am not running an OSR-style game (or, at least, I would say I'm not doing so), and I don't think that GMing the way I am is making for unsatisfying RPGing for the players at the tables I'm GMing for (and I think you're endeavoring to point out potential hazards, not my own failures).



pemerton said:


> A flashback is about something the PC did. _What tales have you heard of this place? _centres the character as the recipient of information. _Is there a chandelier for me to swing on? _is in effect an action declaration (_I look for a chandelier)_. Spending a point to make these sorts of things true is just auto-success.




Using tools from outside the fiction--maybe even including auto-wins; I'd have to think on that--doesn't feel to me as though it's the character doing it. I think my thoughts on why I detest the GM meddling with my character by use of something like Compels, but shrug off a villain turning my character into a temporary puppet, are clear.



pemerton said:


> I've never played or GMed Fate. Is it considered good GMing practice to compel someone when they have no Fate point? My gut feel is that the more conventional thing would be to compel them to tempt them into spending their last point.




Without looking at the book, I'd say it's at least not called out as bad GMing. If there are any statements that it's different than sucking their Fate Points dry, I don't think they're any more strongly-phrased than the text in the 5E DMG about when to call for a roll on an Ability Check.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> I don't get to change the direction of the fiction, I just get to change the framing of the scene: I can use a Fate Point (and an Aspect my character has) to turn a random mook into my character's college roommate, but that doesn't define how the fiction progresses outside that scene.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I want it to be my character's story, not my story (multiplied by the number of characters/players).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> games that use such metagame rules aren't TRPGs--because they force the players to divorce themselves from their characters, to want something other than what their characters want, to act in the game differently from what their characters arguably should.





Ovinomancer said:


> That's a bit off-center.  A GM in FATE can offer a Compel, and the player cannot refuse it if they don't have FATE points to spend to counter it, but the only thing the GM can Compel are the traits that the player chose for their character that represent the trouble or issue that character has.  In other words, the GM can only compel you to, well, play your character as you defined them.  It is a loss of agency?  Absolutely -- you aren't making the choice to engage in that flaw right now otherwise.  Is it the same loss of agency as a dominate person?  Absolutely not -- you did get a choice in what could be Compelled whereas you do not get any choices with Dominate Person.  Does this distinction matter?  Well, if you're going to be upset at the concept of Compelling and feel it's a usurpation of your right to control your character, then no, not really.  But, in a clear analysis, these things are different.



Following on from my post just upthread:

Ovinomancer's view is the same as my own: a Compel in Fate trades on a character aspect, which means that it's not an instance of the character acting differently from what s/he wants or what s/he arguably should do.

And the example of the college room-mate is exactly an instance of what I said in that earlier post responding to @Ovinomancer: _my character looks around and sees a friendly face_. It's an auto-success on the (perhaps implicit) action declaration _Do I see anyone I know here?_

In Marvel Heroic this doesn't even cost a resource, and Wolverine's player gets 1 XP every time s/he tells us how Wolverine recognises someone in the scene as "and old ally or foe" (under the Old Friends, Old Enemies milestone).



prabe said:


> The Certificate @pemerton has mentioned in Prince Valiant, he's described as an auto-win, which seems different (and may be why he doesn't think of it as a metagame instrument/mechanic).



In our most recent session, a certificate was spent to Kill a Foe in Combat (pp 45-46), namely, the "dragon" that had tried to overturn the PCs' vessel and had tipped two of them into the water:

Any enemy, whether newly made or long known, can be destroyed with this Special Effect, guaranteed, as long as the selected character [ie the one doing the killing] is armed and capable of serious offensive action. The character must be in combat with the chosen foe at the moment, and not in a disadvantageous situation (surrounded by enemies, injured, his back turned to the enemy). The selected character makes an attack, and the attack is miraculously successful, killing the foe instantly.​
In the previous session, the PCs had encountered the Bone Laird, in D&D terms an undead, who was haunting a Dacian forest with his retinue as a result of some ancient curse. Two of the PCs figured there must be a location (eg his former home) that the curse was linked to, and hurried through the forest looking for it. They spent a certificate to Find Something Hidden (p 45):

An item which is lost, hidden, or otherwise concealed is discovered almost by accident by a character. The thing must be relatively close at hand, and the character must be searching for it at the moment. For example, knowing that a treasure is hidden somewhere in the kingdom of Cornwall is not specific information enough to put this Special Effect into action. But knowing that the treasure is hidden in a garden, or a keep, or other limited area qualifies.​
As I said, these are auto-successes on action declarations (_I kill the dragon with my sword by striking its soft underbelly_; _We hurry through the forest looking for the old home of the Bone Laird)._


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> Following on from my post just upthread:
> 
> Ovinomancer's view is the same as my own: a Compel in Fate trades on a character aspect, which means that it's not an instance of the character acting differently from what s/he wants or what s/he arguably should do.
> 
> And the example of the college room-mate is exactly an instance of what I said in that earlier post responding to @Ovinomancer: _my character looks around and sees a friendly face_. It's an auto-success on the (perhaps implicit) action declaration _Do I see anyone I know here?_




I was thinking specifically about one of a number of mooks sent to commit mayhem on my character, but that's not super-relevant. I really want to be clear that in the paragraph from which you pulled that description of why some people say those games aren't TRPGs I was reporting someone else's opinion, not my own. I thought that was clear in what I wrote.



pemerton said:


> In our most recent session, a certificate was spent to Kill a Foe in Combat (pp 45-46), namely, the "dragon" that had tried to overturn the PCs' vessel and had tipped two of them into the water:
> 
> Any enemy, whether newly made or long known, can be destroyed with this Special Effect, guaranteed, as long as the selected character [ie the one doing the killing] is armed and capable of serious offensive action. The character must be in combat with the chosen foe at the moment, and not in a disadvantageous situation (surrounded by enemies, injured, his back turned to the enemy). The selected character makes an attack, and the attack is miraculously successful, killing the foe instantly.​
> In the previous session, the PCs had encountered the Bone Laird, in D&D terms an undead, who was haunting a Dacian forest with his retinue as a result of some ancient curse. Two of the PCs figured there must be a location (eg his former home) that the curse was linked to, and hurried through the forest looking for it. They spent a certificate to Find Something Hidden (p 45):
> 
> An item which is lost, hidden, or otherwise concealed is discovered almost by accident by a character. The thing must be relatively close at hand, and the character must be searching for it at the moment. For example, knowing that a treasure is hidden somewhere in the kingdom of Cornwall is not specific information enough to put this Special Effect into action. But knowing that the treasure is hidden in a garden, or a keep, or other limited area qualifies.​
> As I said, these are auto-successes on action declarations (_I kill the dragon with my sword by striking its soft underbelly_; _We hurry through the forest looking for the old home of the Bone Laird)._




Thanks also for this unpacking of the game. I have a strong suspicion I'm not a player well-suited for it, but I'm pleased that it exists and (apparently) works as well as it does.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> I worry about the player maybe explicitly having a dog in the fight, so to speak, especially if that player was the one who proposed the action in question. I mean, even if the player isn't advocating hard for his character, it seems reasonable that he thinks it's credible and that he wants it to happen.



I agree that the player has a dog in the fight. But I don't see the problem with that. I don't think it hurts the game for the ficiton to trend in the direction the players want.

Here are some concrete examples, from epic tier 4e D&D I've *bolded* the bits where players estabish credibiity; in the second quote that would mean bolding lots of it so for the sorcerer's plan I haven't bolded beyond the introduction to it):



pemerton said:


> Anticipating the likelihood of an assault on Lolth before I left home for the session, I had packed my copy of Q1, which I now broke out. I also discovered that the module is not very user-friendly for someone who hasn't actually read through it since many years ago. It also has a lot of filler.
> 
> One thing that was obvious, however, was that the Tower was too big to fit in the web tunnels. So I described the Tower tearing the webs asunder, leading to souls flowing out of them and into the howling Abyss.* The paladin (of the Raven Queen) spoke a prayer [resolved as a Religion check], however, to funnel the souls out of the Abyss and into the Shadowfell to cross the Bridge that May be Traversed But Once.* (This mysterious place in the Shadowfell used to be guarded by Ometh, a strange exarch of the Raven Queen, but the PCs killed Ometh and the paladin - a Marshall of Letherna - has more-or less taken his place.)
> 
> This also had the effect of imposing a -2 penalty on the sorcerer's Demonsoul Bolt attacks, as his supply of demonsouls dwindled.
> 
> *The players decided that the PCs would use the Tower to tear through the Demonweb to its centre, looking for Lolth. This seemed reasonable*, and also meant that we could skip all the filler! The only bit that I could properly remember was the powerful drow in the pyramid room, so as the Tower flew past their door they came out, and the one with sufficient range (a drow archmage with a range 20 venom attack - I was using stats from the MM3 drow entry) took an unsuccessful pot-shot before being blasted in return by the lightning from the base of the Tower.
> 
> In my capacity as GM I decided that Lolth had had enough of a bunch of upstarts in a Thundercloud Tower tearing through her realm and thumbing their noses at her most powerful servants, so she manifested herself in the centre of the plane
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I determined that it would take the six drow NPCs 5 rounds to catch up to the Tower and Lolth. *The paladin player explained that he wanted to use his control over the flow of souls to create disruptions in the Demonweb to slow them down, and I though that sounded reasonable and so gave the players an extra round.* Six rounds to defeat a solo Lolth.





pemerton said:


> It then came to the drow sorcerer's turn. In an email a few days ago the player had told me that *he had a plan to seal off the Abyssal rift created by the tearing of the Demonwebs and the killing of Lolth [only Lolth's webs had been keeping ultimate chaos of the Abys at bay], that relied upon the second law of thermodynamics. Now was the time for him to explain it.* It took quite a while at the table (20 minutes? Maybe more? There was a lot of interjection and discussion). Here is the summary version:
> 
> * The second law of thermodynamics tells us that time and entropy are correlated: increases in entropy from moment to moment are indicative of the arrow of time;
> 
> * Hence, when entropy reaches its maximum state - and so cannot increase - time has stopped;
> 
> * Hence, if an effect that would normally last until the end of the encounter could be turned into an effect of ultimate chaos (entropy), time would stop in respect of the effect and it would not come to an end.
> 
> So far, so good, but how is this helping to seal off the Abyss?
> 
> * Earlier in the encounter the sorcerer had created a Cloak of Winter Storm which, using an elemental swapping item, was actually a zone of thunder (larger than normal because created while a Huge primordial [as per his Epic Destiny of Emergent Primordial]) that caused shift 1 sq which, through various feat combos, was actually teleportation;
> 
> * If this could be extended in size, and converted into a zone of ultimate entropy instead of just a zone of thunder, then it would not come to an end (for the reasons given above);
> 
> * Furthermore, anyone who approached it would slow down (as time came to a stop with the increase in entropy) and, if they hit it, be teleported back 1 square;
> 
> * As to how a zone of elemental thunder might be converted into a zone of ultimate entropy, that's what a chaos sorcerer is for - especially as, at that time, the Slaad lord of Entropy, Ygorl, was trapped inside the Crystal of Ebon Flame and so control over entropy was arguably unclaimed by any other entity and hence available to be claimed by the sorcerer PC.
> 
> But couldn't someone who wanted to pass through this entropic barrier just teleport from one side to the other?
> 
> * On his turn, the sorcerer therefore spent his move action to stand from prone (I can't now remember why he had started the session prone), and used his minor action to activate his Cloud of Darkness - through which only he can see;
> 
> * He then readied his standard action to help the invoker/wizard perform the mighty feat of Arcana that would merge the darkness and the zone into a visually and physically impenetrable entropic field, through which nothing could pass unless able to teleport without needing line of sight.
> 
> Unfortunately, the invoker/wizard wasn't ready to help with this plan, _and_ had doubts about its chaotic aspect. On his turn, he instead rescued the paladin and fighter PCs who had become trapped in the Abyssal rift (by casting Tide of the First Storm to wash them back up onto the top of the PCs' Thundercloud Tower).
> 
> *He also used his Erathis's Beacon blessing - a heal effect - to instead cast Remove Affliction as a minor action rather than the normal 1 hour ritual*, which rescued the dwarf PC from Far Realm-induced protoplasmic helplessness. (As is the convention in the game, this non-standard use permanently exhausted the blessing.) The healing unfortunately reduced the dwarf fighter to unconsciousness, but his Ring of Pelor (I can't remember now what it's name is in the rulebook) activated and he turned into a cloud of ash, ready to recorporate next round with half his hit points back, and to take on Pazuzu if necessary.
> 
> The paladin then used his turn to bodily pick up the drow and carry him into the control circle of the Tower (at the drow's request).
> 
> Pazuzu's turn came around, but he did not re-emerge from the rift. This caused some speculation, but there was a general consensus that he could probably survive the harsh Abyssal forces and so mightn't suffer in the same way the PCs had upon being sucked in.
> 
> The drow's turn then came around. He used his move action to fly the Tower up and out of the two zones (darkness and thunder). *He then used a minor action to cast Stretch Spell - as written, a range-boosting effect but it seemed fitting, in spirit, to try to extend and compress zones to create a barrier of ultimate, impenetrable entropy*. And then he got ready to make his Arcana check as a standard action.
> 
> Now INT is pretty much a dump stat for everyone in the party but the invoker/wizard. In the case of the sorcerer it is 12 - so with training and level, he has an Arcana bonus of +20. So when I stated that the DC was 41, it looked a bit challenging. (It was always going to be a Hard check - if any confirmation was needed, the Rules Compendium suggests that manipulating the energies of a magical phenomenon is a Hard Arcana improvisation.)
> 
> So he started looking around for bonuses. *As a chaos mage, he asked whether he could burn healing surges for a bonus on the roll - giving of his very essence. I thought that sounded reasonable, and so allowed 4 surges for +8*. Unfortunately he had only 2 surges left, so the other half of the bonus had to come from taking damage equal to his bloodied value - which was OK, as he was currently unbloodied.
> 
> He scraped another +2 from somewhere (I can't remember now), brining the roll needed down to 11. The dice was rolled - and came up 18! So he succeeded in converting his zones of darkness and thunder into a compressed, extended, physically and visually impenetrable entropic barrier, in which time doesn't pass (and hence the effects don't end), sealing off the Abyss at its 66th layer.
> 
> The unfortunate side effect, as was clarified between me (as GM) and the player before the action was declared, was that - as the effects never end - so he can never recharge his Cloak of Darkness encounter power or his Cloak of the Winter Storm daily.
> 
> A modest price to pay for cementing the defeat of Lolth and sealing off the bottom of the Abyss from the rest of creation.



I think that these examples illustrates pretty clear the (2a), (2b) distinction I stated upthread: first establishing feasibility/credibility by way of table consensus; then framing the action and resolving it by way of "say 'yes' or roll the dice".

In those posts there are two examples of rolling the dice: funnelling the souls across The Bridge That May Be Traversed But Once, and sealing the Abyss. There are more examples of "saying 'yes'": allowing the Thundercloud Tower to tear through the Demonwebs; allowing the previous successful Religion check to allow using the flow of souls to slow down the NPCs; allowing the Beacon to be permanentely expended in order to allow the rapid performance of a ritual; allowing Strech Spell to feed into the plan to seal the Abyss; allowing the chaos sorcerer to give of his essence to power his attempt to seal the Abyss.

Two of those examples of saying "yes" trade on the system's resource econcomy (and so are a bit like, though obviously not identical to, spending a Fate point or a Storyteller Certificate): expending the Beacon, and spending healing surges and hit points for the buff to the check. Having a robust resource economy in a game supports effective GMing in my view, especially when the game has lots of moving parts as D&D tends to.

In my view these examples of play illustrate a relative high degree of player agency in respect of the shared fiction. I think they show how that differs from what I have called "puzzle-solving" play. I also think they show an approach to RPGing that is quite different from OSR-ish/"delve"/dungeoncrawl play.

Now the maths and resource economy of 4e D&D tend to be weighted in favour of player success, which is what helps make it a game of gonzo high-fantasy. Here is another example, from Burning Wheel, which involves failure:

The rogue wizard, Jobe, had a relationship with his brother and rival. 

<snip>

 I had pulled out my old Greyhawk material and told them they were starting in the town of Hardby, half-way between the forest (where the assassin [Halika]  had fled from) and the desert hills (where Jobe had been travelling), and so each came up with a belief around that: _I'm not leaving Hardby without gaining some magical item to use against my brother_ [was Jobe's.]

<snip>

I started things in the Hardby market: Jobe was looking at the wares of a peddler of trinkets and souvenirs, to see if there was anything there that might be magical or useful for enchanting for the anticipated confrontation with his brother. Given that the brother is possessed by a demon, he was looking for something angelic. The peddler pointed out an angel feather that he had for sale, brought to him from the Bright Desert. Jobe (who has, as another instinct, to always use Second Sight), used Aura Reading to study the feather for magical traits. The roll was a failure, and so he noticed that it was Resistant to Fire (potentially useful in confronting a Balrog) but also cursed. (Ancient History was involved somehow here too, maybe as a FoRK into Aura Reading (? I can't really remember), establishing something about an ancient battle between angels and demons in the desert.)

My memory of the precise sequence of events is hazy, but in the context the peddler was able to insist on proceeding with the sale, demanding 3 drachmas (Ob 1 resource check). As Jobe started haggling a strange woman (Halika) approached him and offered to help him if he would buy her lunch. Between the two of them, the haggling roll was still a failure, and also the subsequent Resources check: so Jobe got his feather but spent his last 3 drachmas, and was taxed down to Resources 0. They did get some more information about the feather from the peddler, however - he bought it from a wild-eyed man with dishevelled beard and hair, who said that it had come from one of the tombs in the Bright Desert.

Jobe, being unable to buy Halika any lunch, suggested he might be able to find some work for them instead.​
Again there is no hint of RPG-as-puzzle. The player establishes the credibility of the peddler selling something angelic; of such a thing being useful in confronting a Balrog; and the credibility of knowing something from ancient history about such things as battels between angels and demons. But the action resolution fails, and so the feather is not as desirable as had been hoped, because it is cursed.


----------



## Campbell

In general I am not fan of FATE. Based on what @pemerton has said about it I would likely bounce off of Prince Valiant, but would probably enjoy the scenarios. I think a lot of the games @pemerton likes have the possibility (although not the inevitability) of being played as *story advocacy* games where play tends to revolve around competing visions of how the story should go. My preference is to play games that are strongly rooted in *character advocacy*. In the sort of play I tend to prefer (for character focused play) players simply play strong protagonists who goes after the things they want and it is the GM who frames them into conflicts.

That being said those games when played as written still have a very strong sense of player agency over the fiction. I tend to not enjoy how they get there, but that is another matter entirely.

My own preference is a tendency towards games that have a great deal of correspondence with the fiction, where the rules of the game almost underwrite the mentality of the characters. Games like Dogs in the Vineyard, Sorcerer, Apocalypse World, Masks, and Monsterhearts. Blades in the Dark pretty much represents the edge of what I like. I find that stress and flashbacks have just another fictional correspondence to help us portray these dangerous rogues who live life on a knife's edge.  The Forged in the Dark games that go further like Band of Blades are not to my taste.

I tend to prefer the way the games I like achieve player agency over the fiction - transparent GM ethos, player facing mechanics that constrain both players and GMs, and focus on making play a more fluid conversation. The GM is still given a great deal of latitude, greater in some areas than a game like modern D&D, but the MC does not like *run the game*.  They are a player that takes on a slightly different role.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> You described the Certificate earlier as an auto-win. Are there limitations or restrictions on that?





prabe said:


> Using tools from outside the fiction--maybe even including auto-wins; I'd have to think on that--doesn't feel to me as though it's the character doing it.



On the idea of "tools from outside the fiction" - a flashback doesn't invovle tools from outside the fiction (the PC packed his/her rucksack well), nor does looking for a chandelier or recognising a friend in a crowd. These are all things that the PC has done or is currenlty doing.

Of course the fate point or whatever exists outside the fiction, but so does the d20, the action ecnomy, the hit point, etc. These are all mechanical apparatuses.

In non-OSR RPGing I've often had a player ask something like "Can we assume that I bought some rope when we were back in town?" A flashback is like that but with player-side control: it shifts agency but it doesn't change the basic process.

And spending a Storyteller Certificate to kill someone, or find something, or arouse the passions of a crowd, or make someone fall in love wish you (these are the affects that have been used in our game; others include things like escaping, or remaining hidden, or saving someone in combat, or causing fear, or granting ispirational buffs) isn't any different from achieving such a thing via a check, except the check is not required. (It's no coincidence that the most frequent user of Kill a Foe in Combat is the player whose PC has the weakest combat stats on his PC sheet.)



prabe said:


> clearly there's something in the fiction that led the PC to pray in Hagia Sophia and introduce himself, so the player could declare those actions expecting those results to be among the possible consequences? I figure there's some elision happening, there, because I don't see the recognition as described as a consequence I'd expect of an introduction



Here are fuller accounts of those two moments of play:



pemerton said:


> I decided to use the scenario The Crimson Bull. The PCs met an old man, the last survivor of an assault, holding a crimson bull by a black cord. He asked for help to take the bull to the Valley of Mudde. Through good fortune rather than good planning on my part, the map (we are using the Map of Britain on the inside cover of the Pendragon book) indicated that this would be at the southern end of a large fen on the mid east coast. The PCs (and players) were curious about this, but being noble knights offered to help. Sir Justin introduced himself as Sir Justin and then made a successful Presence check, with the result that the old man knew of him - "You're Sir Justin the Gentle, of the shrine of St Sigobert" [in an earlier session Sir Justin helped care for some of the ill in that hospice, earning the sobriquet Sir Justin the Gentle] - and I was sufficiently impressed and amused to give him a Storyteller Certificate.





pemerton said:


> Sir Justin, who had been badly wounded in the forest [by the Bone Laird], was utterly spent (reduced to 1D in each of Brawn and Presence).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the dragon was slain by Sir Morgath. An Oratory check by Sir Gerran enabled him to maintain control over the soldiers still on the boat and that had fallen into the water, so only two Huns of the PCs' entourage were lost. The bones of one was recovered so that they could be placed in the reliquary for martyrs of the Order
> 
> <snip>
> 
> When the PCs and their retinue arrived in Constantinople they were welcomed as dragon-slayers. Luxurious pavilions had been established outside the walls of the city, and taxidermists were waiting to prepare the body of the dragon. The players abandoned their plan to turn the hide into armour and instead gifted the body to the Emperor: a troop of their soldiers carried the body up to the gate of the city, where they handed it over to Varangians to carry it to the Emperor. The PCs also entered the city unarmed and unarmoured (wearing their fine clothes, and with Sir Justin being borne on a litter as he was still on Brawn of 2 ie 2 down from his normal 4) and did homage to the Emperor in one of his palaces. He presented them with gifts, which I asked the players to narrate: Sir Morgath and his wife Elizabeth were gifted fine robes, which provided the standard +1 prestige bonus in the East but would provide a +2 bonus when worn in the West; Sir Gerran was gifted a jewelled and damascened sword of Syrian make (+1 prestige when worn); and Sir Justin was gifted a mace which had once been wielded by the Gothic holy man St Cuthbert, and so seemed a fitting gift for a Western knight who had come to the East to fight a holy war (the mace of St Cuthbert grants +1D when fighting heathens).
> 
> The PCs then prayed in Hagia Sophia. I can't now remember whether or not there was a check associated with this, but Sir Justin had a vision of St Sophia and St Sigobert side-by-side, with the host of martyrs behind them, who assured him that his crusade would not fail so long as the reliquary of the Martyrs of St Sigobert was not despoiled. As a result he healed, going from -2 to -1 Brawn. I also gave his player a Storyteller Certificate.


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> In general I am not fan of FATE. Based on what @pemerton has said about it I would likely bounce off of Prince Valiant, but would probably enjoy the scenarios. I think a lot of the games @pemerton likes have the possibility (although not the inevitability) of being played as *story advocacy* games where play tends to revolve around competing visions of how the story should go. My preference is to play games that are strongly rooted in *character advocacy*. In the sort of play I tend to prefer (for character focused play) players simply play strong protagonists who goes after the things they want and it is the GM who frames them into conflicts.
> 
> That being said those games when played as written still have a very strong sense of player agency over the fiction. I tend to not enjoy how they get there, but that is another matter entirely.
> 
> My own preference is a tendency towards games that have a great deal of correspondence with the fiction, where the rules of the game almost underwrite the mentality of the characters. Games like Dogs in the Vineyard, Sorcerer, Apocalypse World, Masks, and Monsterhearts. Blades in the Dark pretty much represents the edge of what I like. I find that stress and flashbacks have just another fictional correspondence to help us portray these dangerous rogues who live life on a knife's edge.  The Forged in the Dark games that go further like Band of Blades are not to my taste.
> 
> I tend to prefer the way the games I like achieve player agency over the fiction - transparent GM ethos, player facing mechanics that constrain both players and GMs, and focus on making play a more fluid conversation. The GM is still given a great deal of latitude, greater in some areas than a game like modern D&D, but the MC does not like *run the game*.  They are a player that takes on a slightly different role.



I've never played or GMed Fate. Of the games I like I suspect - it's more than a guess but not much more than conjecture - that you would like Classic Traveller the most and Cortex+ Heroic the least.

I think that Burning Wheel and Prince Valiant sit somewhere between story- and character- advocacy, or maybe on the border between them. They encourage strong PCs played forthrightly (Prince Valiant is definitely more pulp-y/4-colour than BW) but there are resource expenditure choices (various sorts of points in BW; certificates in Prince Valiant) that lean more towards story control.

4e D&D also has points and allied things (surges, limited-use abilities, etc) but the choice about expenditure of these tends to be more tightly embedded in a tactical situation, hence making the choice more immediate and urgent, than in BW or Prince Valiant.

I'm curious what you think of these ruminations.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> Yes, 5e has flaws.  No, having descriptions isn't one of them.




I didn’t say that having descriptions was the flaw. It can become very frustrating to speak with you at times. 

My point has been that part of the problem in the OP is that the DM has described a NPC. The players have no way of knowing how that description translates into game mechanics, so they really aren’t sure how to engage with it. Then, additionally, the DM can simply deny that a declared action has any chance for success.

This can lead to less player agency. I don’t even know how you can argue that....not without resorting to some overly broad definition of agency. 

Take a system that doesn’t allow a GM to simply decide that an action is impossible. Others have mentioned the principle of “say yes or roll the dice”. The GM can either say that the action succeeds, or he calls for a roll to determine the outcome. He can’t deny it outright. Such a system is designed to maintain player agency by not having an option that totally removes it.

Blades in the Dark does allow the GM to declare that a stated action will have zero effect. However, this is coupled with the player’s ability to spend stress to push for effect. This means that on a success, instead of zero effect, the PC gets limited effect. The same thing happens if the player rolls a critical. So although a GM can decide an action has no chance, the player has resources at his disposal to override that decision for a cost, and to still have a chance.

This is all discussed openly between the GM and players so that the player knows his chances for success and the severity of consequences for failure. Basically the GM and players discuss the fiction, and then they put the fiction into game terms, and then the player decides to proceed or not.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> Who says you're suspended over air? My character realized he couldn't make it, and skidded to a halt at the ledge.



In which case you never attempted the leap at all; you're denying the commitment your action declaration has tied you to.

Flat-out declaring "I try to leap the chasm" commits you to at the very least going over the side.  There's really only three possible outcomes (with minor variants on each): you safely make it to the other side; or you fall; or you hit the far bank or cliff below your safe landing point and manage to hang on there.

A less-committed declaration would be something like "I try to gauge the distance and then if I think I can make it I'll leap the chasm"; with skidding to a halt possibly being the result of a success on gauging the distance and realizing in the fiction that no, you ain't gonna make that.


----------



## Fenris-77

Lanefan said:


> In which case you never attempted the leap at all; you're denying the commitment your action declaration has tied you to.
> 
> *Flat-out declaring "I try to leap the chasm" commits you to at the very least going over the side.*  There's really only three possible outcomes (with minor variants on each): you safely make it to the other side; or you fall; or you hit the far bank or cliff below your safe landing point and manage to hang on there.
> 
> A less-committed declaration would be something like "I try to gauge the distance and then if I think I can make it I'll leap the chasm"; with skidding to a halt possibly being the result of a success on gauging the distance and realizing in the fiction that no, you ain't gonna make that.



I disagree, at least for a game like D&D. When a player makes a declaration the DM certainly has the option to insert an "are you sure about that" moment. It's pretty standard play to outline consequences and then ask for confirmation. I don't do it all the time, but I would in cases where I suspect the player may have some misconceptions about levels of success required.


----------



## pemerton

On this discussion of jumping: I think _you lose your nerve and pull up at the edge _would certainly be a legitimate narration of failure in Burning Wheel or Prince Valiant. I think it would be a bit more unconventinal in D&D, because normally the GM doesn't narrate the emotional state of the PC.

But at a particular table I can imagine it as acceptable.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> In which case you never attempted the leap at all; you're denying the commitment your action declaration has tied you to.
> 
> Flat-out declaring "I try to leap the chasm" commits you to at the very least going over the side.  There's really only three possible outcomes (with minor variants on each): you safely make it to the other side; or you fall; or you hit the far bank or cliff below your safe landing point and manage to hang on there.
> 
> A less-committed declaration would be something like "I try to gauge the distance and then if I think I can make it I'll leap the chasm"; with skidding to a halt possibly being the result of a success on gauging the distance and realizing in the fiction that no, you ain't gonna make that.




Ah but go back and look at why I brought this up in the first place. I was saying it in response to Max telling me that the DM in 5E can’t apply consequences to a failed roll. He said:


Maxperson said:


> Failure = don't succeed. It does not = don't succeed plus setback.




So I took the example of a jump and decided how that would work. Skidding to a halt is the only way that I can see a PC not succeed at a jump while facing no further consequences for the failure.

The three possible outcomes you mentioned don’t fit the “Failure=don’t succeed” idea. The reason is because it’s not the way the game is played. The DM is always adding consequences to failed rolls.

So I wasn’t really advocating for a PC skidding to a halt (although that may actually be a fine ruling for the DM to make) so much as using that example to show how the DM applies consequences to failed actions.


----------



## Fenris-77

In the jumping example falling is part of the failure state, not some sort of additional setback. They aren't separate.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> I didn’t say that having descriptions was the flaw. It can become very frustrating to speak with you at times.




You very clearly spoke about DMs not describing things completely or clearly making it hard for players to know what to do, and then said that was a flaw of 5e.  That's descriptions being the flaw.

Maybe you just described the flaw poorly, though.  That could be a flaw of this thread(and many other threads).  



> My point has been that part of the problem in the OP is that the DM has described a NPC. The players have no way of knowing how that description translates into game mechanics, so they really aren’t sure how to engage with it. Then, additionally, the DM can simply deny that a declared action has any chance for success.




Unless the DM is just going to give all of the mechanical information to the players independently of the description, this is going to be a problem with any game that employs descriptions.  This goes back to your dragon example.  Unless you as DM tell the players that the dragon has an AC of 22, telling them that the dragon is armored won't translate clearly into game mechanics and they won't be sure how to engage with it.  Engaging an 18 AC dragon could be winnable, while a 22 AC dragon would be death.

The main difference between "The dragon is armored." and "The baron is insane and does horrible things to those who insult him." is that the latter is clearer and gives you a better idea of what to avoid.  Knowing that armor class is a mechanic doesn't mean much.


----------



## Maxperson

Fenris-77 said:


> I disagree, at least for a game like D&D. When a player makes a declaration the DM certainly has the option to insert an "are you sure about that" moment. It's pretty standard play to outline consequences and then ask for confirmation. I don't do it all the time, but I would in cases where I suspect the player may have some misconceptions about levels of success required.



I do it not only then, but also if I know that the PC would have a clearer idea that the attempt would be a bad idea.  Sometimes, when the PC might or might not realize, I'll call for an intelligence or wisdom check, which if successful, will result in something like, "You realize that this leap is about 4 or 5 feet farther than you've ever manged to jump before."


----------



## Fenris-77

I will also use the confirmation moment to outline possible consequences specific to the attempt. D&D doesn't fail forward mechanically, so if I want to adjudicate that way this is the moment where I'll outline the range of possibilities. For example, with the jump, I might say _if you miss by three or less you'll have a chance to grab the other side, but more than that and you're going all the way down._


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> You very clearly spoke about DMs not describing things completely or clearly making it hard for players to know what to do, and then said that was a flaw of 5e.  That's descriptions being the flaw.
> 
> Maybe you just described the flaw poorly, though.  That could be a flaw of this thread(and many other threads).




I believe I was clear that the issue was about how 5E can leave it very unclear how what the DM describes translate into game mechanics that the players can reliably understand/predict/interact with. If that wasn’t clear prior, I hope it is now and we can discuss with this in mind going forward.




Maxperson said:


> Unless the DM is just going to give all of the mechanical information to the players independently of the description, this is going to be a problem with any game that employs descriptions.




Two things here. First, why can’t the DM just give all the mechanical info to the players? The way you preface that idea with “unless” makes it sound like you think this typically shouldn’t be done. Why not? Or did I misunderstand what you’re saying?

Second, I never said that this can’t be a flaw in many games. Lots of games take major cues from D&D, and so this weak point will often carry through. But how severe it is for each game will vary; I think you’d likely agree with that, yes? If so, what I’m saying is that it’s a particularly significant weakness for D&D. It can be avoided and/or mitigated, but it’s there.

Look at my example from Blades in the Dark, where all of this is discussed between GM and player before the player has to commit his character to the action and make the roll. It’s possible something may not translate from fiction to mechanics in an entirely clear way, but it seems far less likely, doesn’t it? The player knows the character’s Position for the action, the strength of the Effect on a success, and the degree of consequence of failure. The specific consequences may be known or unknown, but their severity is clear. 

Where do you think this system lends itself to the muddy fiction-mechanics relation? 



Maxperson said:


> This goes back to your dragon example.  Unless you as DM tell the players that the dragon has an AC of 22, telling them that the dragon is armored won't translate clearly into game mechanics and they won't be sure how to engage with it.  Engaging an 18 AC dragon could be winnable, while a 22 AC dragon would be death.
> 
> The main difference between "The dragon is armored." and "The baron is insane and does horrible things to those who insult him." is that the latter is clearer and gives you a better idea of what to avoid.  Knowing that armor class is a mechanic doesn't mean much.




Sure it does. Because the players know that the dragon has an AC score. It’s a mechanic they can understand and rely on. It’s pervasive in the game. Whether a specific AC is given, or just a description of it being heavily armored, the players have some sense what that means. They know that it’s going to come down to their attack bonuses and spells that can inflict damage without an attack roll and other combat-oriented, player facing elements that the game makes crystal clear. Even if the AC is so high that it’s beyond their abilities to hit with a d20 roll except if they score a natural 20, which is always a success, they have an idea of their odds and how things work. 

They also know that the DM isn’t simply going to decide “nah, your attacks have no chance to succeed here.” This is key. This will not happen in combat, barring either really poor GMing or a spectacularly fringe edge case. 

In the social interaction with the Baron, nothing is so clearly defined as all that. The players may have some sense of using their Social skills to deal with him (Persuasion, Deception, Intimidation), but no real way of knowing which may be well suited, which may work, and which will be shot down out of hand by the DM. They don’t know what the equivalent to AC is in this scenario, or HP. The game lacks these elements. 

Then, on top of that, the DM may simply decide at any point that something they’ve declared not only doesn’t succeed, but can have dire consequences. That unilateral ability for the DM to do so is a huge compromise to the idea of player agency.


----------



## hawkeyefan

To add on to my prior post.....can the players decide that the story of the game is “how the outsiders came to Vallaki and cowed the baron into stopping his madness”? 

If they can’t decide that, then doesn’t it simply mean that the GM has already decided how they must go about their goal? And if so, isn’t that clearly a limit on agency?


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> There's no difference. That's why, in 4e D&D, there is a monster - I think a type of chained demon - that is able to establish a (mechanical) dominate effect because (in the fiction) it has wrapped its chains around the PC and is manipulating the PC like a marionette.
> 
> EDIT: I looked it up: the creature is a Gorechain Devil.
> 
> From p 65 of the MM2: "These shambling hulks . . . wrap[] their soon-to-be-dead foes in gore-encrusted spiked chains and control[] them like puppets".
> 
> The mechanical implementation of this fiction is:
> 
> *Gorechain Takeover* (standard, recharge 5,6)​Melee 3: +15 vs Fortitude, 3d6+5 damage, and the target is dominated (save ends).​The dominated condition ends if the target is more than 3 squares away frm the gorechain devil at the start of the target's turn.​




I saw this go by yesterday, and I'm just having a chance to refer back to this now (sorry).

This doesn't bother me the way that having the GM tell me what my character does, does. This effect is how this monster works, it's what it does; as a thing that opposes my character in the story, that's trying to impose its story on the world, that's fine. Someone from outside the fiction (such as the GM, or even another player) reaching in to impose their story on my character: That bothers me, greatly. The difference feels clear in my mind, and I hope it's clear in the words.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> Two things here. First, why can’t the DM just give all the mechanical info to the players? The way you preface that idea with “unless” makes it sound like you think this typically shouldn’t be done. Why not? Or did I misunderstand what you’re saying?




No I don't think it should be done, unless that's how you guys really love to play.  For me and my group it would not only destroy a large portion of the game's mystery, but would drag us kicking and screaming out of immersion, turning D&D into a gamist game.  I don't want to play a game of numbers when I roleplay.  If I wanted that, I'd play a board game.




> If so, what I’m saying is that it’s a particularly significant weakness for D&D. It can be avoided and/or mitigated, but it’s there.
> 
> Look at my example from Blades in the Dark, where all of this is discussed between GM and player before the player has to commit his character to the action and make the roll. It’s possible something may not translate from fiction to mechanics in an entirely clear way, but it seems far less likely, doesn’t it? The player knows the character’s Position for the action, the strength of the Effect on a success, and the degree of consequence of failure. The specific consequences may be known or unknown, but their severity is clear.
> 
> Where do you think this system lends itself to the muddy fiction-mechanics relation?




I think it sounds like a horrible system(for me) that makes Blades more about being a game than roleplaying the character and immersing yourself in the story.  The less often mechanics pull me out of the story the better.



> Sure it does. Because the players know that the dragon has an AC score. It’s a mechanic they can understand and rely on. It’s pervasive in the game. Whether a specific AC is given, or just a description of it being heavily armored, the players have some sense what that means. They know that it’s going to come down to their attack bonuses and spells that can inflict damage without an attack roll and other combat-oriented, player facing elements that the game makes crystal clear. Even if the AC is so high that it’s beyond their abilities to hit with a d20 roll except if they score a natural 20, which is always a success, they have an idea of their odds and how things work.




So what.  So AC has a mechanic.  Without a specific score being given for that dragon, the players are more likely to make a bad decision with the dragon than with the Baron.  One AC 16 is beatable.  The other AC 22 is not.  The players aren't going to know which is which from the description, "The dragon is armored."  All of their knowledge of attack bonuses, spells and damage don't matter all that much, since they have no number to compare them to.  Hell, that statement could even mean that this dragon wears some sort of barding that makes it even harder to hit.



> Even if the AC is so high that it’s beyond their abilities to hit with a d20 roll except if they score a natural 20, which is always a success, they have an idea of their odds and how things work.




You're basically arguing that the player not knowing whether they need a 14 or higher to hit or need a natural 20 to hit, gives them an idea of their odds and how things work.  That's ridiculous.  The odds vary so wildly between those two points that any group that relies on them thinking that they "have an idea of the odds." deserves the TPK that they will eventually walk into.



> They also know that the DM isn’t simply going to decide “nah, your attacks have no chance to succeed here.” This is key. This will not happen in combat, barring either really poor GMing or a spectacularly fringe edge case.




Fat lot of good that will do the PCs' corpses if they walk into a dragon fight needing natural 20's to hit.



> In the social interaction with the Baron, nothing is so clearly defined as all that.



It's even more clearly defined.  Instead of the wildly vague and destructive 14 to natural 20 to hit, they have crystal clear knowledge that the Baron is insane and will be very highly likely to have them tortured or killed if they insult him.



> The players may have some sense of using their Social skills to deal with him (Persuasion, Deception, Intimidation), but no real way of knowing which may be well suited, which may work, and which will be shot down out of hand by the DM.




This is wrong.  With only the knowledge in the OP, I know with crystal clarity to not even attempt intimidation.  Trying to intimidate someone who is insane and would react with lethal force to an attempt at intimidation would be stupid, and I'm not stupid.  I also know with crystal clarity that deception is pretty risky, but not as risky as intimidation.  Someone that insane and touchy about things will probably react poorly to being lied to, but probably not as badly as if I tried to intimidate him.  Persuasion would absolutely be the best way to go, IF I even want to risk a conversation with a madman, which I probably don't.



> They don’t know what the equivalent to AC is in this scenario, or HP. The game lacks these elements.




Sure I do.  Intimidation = AC 22.  I'm very likely to end up dead and take my party down with me.  Deception would AC 18ish.  Possibly winnable, but still risky.  Persuasion would be AC 16.  We can win this one, but it's not guaranteed.  It's the least risky.

I have a clear enough picture of the Baron to make those assessments and assign AC equivalents to the social skills.



> Then, on top of that, the DM may simply decide at any point that something they’ve declared not only doesn’t succeed, but can have dire consequences. That unilateral ability for the DM to do so is a huge compromise to the idea of player agency.



Which is why I'm not going to do something so stupid as to insult a crazy, insult sensitive ruler and risk a reaction with no roll.  If the players use their brains even a little bit, it's really easy to avoid auto failures in social situations.  That leaves only auto successes and having to roll the dice.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I agree that the player has a dog in the fight. But I don't see the problem with that. I don't think it hurts the game for the ficiton to trend in the direction the players want.




I don't have a problem with the fiction trending as the players want, either; I just want it to be rooted in the setting and prior events, and the result of character choices. I'm also more open than you are, I think, to the idea the player who proposed the idea might be stubbornly wrong, which might be as much about our different experiences with fellow-gamers as about our different preferences.



pemerton said:


> Here are some concrete examples, from epic tier 4e D&D I've *bolded* the bits where players estabish credibiity; in the second quote that would mean bolding lots of it so for the sorcerer's plan I haven't bolded beyond the introduction to it):
> 
> {descriptions of play that didn't copy-paste over}
> 
> I think that these examples illustrates pretty clear the (2a), (2b) distinction I stated upthread: first establishing feasibility/credibility by way of table consensus; then framing the action and resolving it by way of "say 'yes' or roll the dice".




I'm going to talk about those as though they were happening at a table were I was GMing, not because you're doing it wrong (y'all are enjoying it greatly, I gather, so that seems unlikely-shading-to-impossible).

At my table, I think the parts you bolded would likely play out (or I would interpret it as playing out) as the party deciding on their plan of action, maybe with some consulting with the GM as to how the plan would interact with the GM's understanding of the rules and the setting (there is some thought at the table that the GM is less likely to forget established in-world facts than the players, which is ... kind of them). It seems as though we may be seeing similar (not identical) processes through different perspectives, eh? I mean, the party in one of the campaigns I GM spent an entire four-hour session planning an assault on an enemy's lair, and there was some checking to make sure the players and the GM were on the same page as far as situation and rules.



pemerton said:


> In those posts there are two examples of rolling the dice: funnelling the souls across The Bridge That May Be Traversed But Once, and sealing the Abyss. There are more examples of "saying 'yes'": allowing the Thundercloud Tower to tear through the Demonwebs; allowing the previous successful Religion check to allow using the flow of souls to slow down the NPCs; allowing the Beacon to be permanentely expended in order to allow the rapid performance of a ritual; allowing Strech Spell to feed into the plan to seal the Abyss; allowing the chaos sorcerer to give of his essence to power his attempt to seal the Abyss.
> 
> Two of those examples of saying "yes" trade on the system's resource econcomy (and so are a bit like, though obviously not identical to, spending a Fate point or a Storyteller Certificate): expending the Beacon, and spending healing surges and hit points for the buff to the check. Having a robust resource economy in a game supports effective GMing in my view, especially when the game has lots of moving parts as D&D tends to.
> 
> In my view these examples of play illustrate a relative high degree of player agency in respect of the shared fiction. I think they show how that differs from what I have called "puzzle-solving" play. I also think they show an approach to RPGing that is quite different from OSR-ish/"delve"/dungeoncrawl play.




I can definitely see how having expendable resources would make it easier to say yes. If nothing else, the player is indicating the importance of the question to them by spending something. I don't know 4E (never played it at all) but I don't see anything in the descriptions here that seems overly generous, especially for a game that you describe as "gonzo."



pemerton said:


> {snipping another description of play}
> 
> Again there is no hint of RPG-as-puzzle. The player establishes the credibility of the peddler selling something angelic; of such a thing being useful in confronting a Balrog; and the credibility of knowing something from ancient history about such things as battels between angels and demons. But the action resolution fails, and so the feather is not as desirable as had been hoped, because it is cursed.




So ... the item is cursed because the character failed to identify it? That's an ... interesting mechanic. I'm pondering how that possibility would affect my decision-making in-game. I think--and this is about me, not about your table or even really the game--that it would gradually erode my suspension of disbelief somewhat as a player; clearly it doesn't for you or your players, or y'all aren't as worried about that--again, that's superb that y'all enjoy playing that way.

I have a question about your term "RPG-as-puzzle": what exactly do you mean by that? Clearly it's a style you don't particularly enjoy--that much is clear--and it seems to come up when someone mentions the possibility that players and/or characters should be allowed to make mistakes (as something different from failing at an action resolution). It seems as though you associate it with bad-faith GMing and/or a degenerate form of play, and it seems as though it comes up a lot around things I don't see as either. (I don't think you're accusing me of either.)


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> It might do, but maybe not in the way/s you think. As has emerged elsewhere in this thread, I have remarkably little problem with mind-control effects inside the game (psychic super-villains, mental parasites, whatever). It's when they come from outside the fiction--when the GM or another player starts reaching into my character--that I get angry.






prabe said:


> If I'm playing a character in a TRPG, I don't particularly want things like that imposed from outside the fiction. It stops feeling like my character against the world and starts feeling like me, the player, against the GM.




But again, to go back to what I said prior, if something exogenous isn't imposing its will upon you (in this case the resolution mechanics) and making your conception of self subordinate to that power in this moment (as happens in real life)...and you're making an active choice to pantomime (or not) the subordination of self to that power...then how are you remotely inhabiting your PC?

This is an aspect of these conversations that get extremely difficult and entangled.  It is because people claim to want (a) verisimilitude/immersion/PC habitation, (b) they want agency, and (c) they want coherent incentive structures (as you cite directly below, which I'll address in a moment).  However, you've got all of the following in a moment where a PC could legitimately have their will (through exogenous forces - social pressures perhaps - interacting with endogenous forces - the endocrine system) become subordinate to another character through mundane interaction:


complete autonomy (as in your second quoted bit) in this moment which must utterly defeat the actual realities of (a) and (b)
an incentive structure that completely pushes back against even the pantomiming of becoming mundanely charmed/intimidated/mentally undone

This is what I was trying to get at in my prior post.  If you're just pantomiming becoming mentally undone (because you want it it "feel like my character" vs what actually happens in real life where when you succumb to something external to your conception of self...that sure as hell isn't something you identify with!...it feels as if you're a stranger to yourself!)...how is that remotely immersive...its literally the opposite of what happens in real life?  Further, you're completely discincentivized in doing so (which you cite as a problem directly below).  You don't identify this as a system issue? 



prabe said:


> I think the system of incentives in the game argue against it being as much about challenging the player's conception of the character as you seem to think. Fate Points are too valuable to ever turn one down, so there's a powerful incentive to inflict more and more badness on your character (or perhaps more accurately to allow the GM to).




I've GMed Fate somewhere around 6-10 times, so I'm quite familiar with the machinery and its context, holistically, in the game at large.  Further still, I'm very familiar with the tech as it interfaces with other systems.

You're arguing for a misaligned incentive structure here.  2 things:

1)  I would like you to address the incentive structure issue I cite directly above (which you don't cite as an issue...particularly how it is at tension with PC habitation/immersion/verisimilitude).  I don't know how the two sit alongside each other.

2)  With respect, I don't think you either have enough experience with Fate and/or games that have similar tech.  To wit:

a)  You're isolating one aspect of the incentive structure of Compels and the Fate Point Economy and claiming everything is downstream from that.  Its not.  The reality is, you have three other competing forces that can, and do, push back against that claim (thereby working back upstream toward some equilibrium).  (1)  Players have a conception of their character that they're interested in testing to possibly realize within the fiction.  If you accept every Compel, you're significantly diminishing those prospects (likely to completion).  (2)  Players have an interest in interesting outcomes and an obligation to the table toward interesting story creation.  This will absolutely push back toward accepting every Compel.  (3)  Players who accept every compel will get themselves into a ridiculous positive feedback loop of trouble...thereby knocking themselves out of scenes routinely...thereby actively limiting their impact on the trajectory of play overall and (1) and (2) above.

So, no, the incentive structures of the game aren't set up such that play isn't the product of this avalanche of "Compel-Acceptance" as you're forecasting it (not to mention the diminishing returns of "swimming in Fate Points" which is the paradigm you're creating here).  Its not that way before play and its certainly not that way during play.   If your limited play featured that, it had to have been a product of some serious misunderstanding of both the apex play priority of the system and the feedback loops of play by the table participants.

b)  There are endless examples of other systems that have competing incentive structures (like the above) that yield a dynamic play experience (both in decision-points and in the fiction that emerges from gamestate changes).  Players aren't constantly trying to fail in BW/TB and DW nor are they constantly trying to put d4 Traits/Relationships (et al) in their dice pools in Dogs nor are they constantly trying to make Action Rolls against Desperate Position in Blades because that is a significant portion of the xp > Advancement paradigm in those games.  Success is important to both your conception of your PC and the trajectory of play.  But this incentive structure tension creates a cognitive space for players (and attendant level of agency) that is filled with conflict and emotion.  "Yeah, I'm going to bring my brother's death into this situation because it emboldens me...but it also makes me reckless as hell....eff it.  For Brendon <pulls out Colt revolver>."


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> On the idea of "tools from outside the fiction" - a flashback doesn't invovle tools from outside the fiction (the PC packed his/her rucksack well), nor does looking for a chandelier or recognising a friend in a crowd. These are all things that the PC has done or is currenlty doing.
> 
> Of course the fate point or whatever exists outside the fiction, but so does the d20, the action ecnomy, the hit point, etc. These are all mechanical apparatuses.
> 
> In non-OSR RPGing I've often had a player ask something like "Can we assume that I bought some rope when we were back in town?" A flashback is like that but with player-side control: it shifts agency but it doesn't change the basic process.
> 
> And spending a Storyteller Certificate to kill someone, or find something, or arouse the passions of a crowd, or make someone fall in love wish you (these are the affects that have been used in our game; others include things like escaping, or remaining hidden, or saving someone in combat, or causing fear, or granting ispirational buffs) isn't any different from achieving such a thing via a check, except the check is not required. (It's no coincidence that the most frequent user of Kill a Foe in Combat is the player whose PC has the weakest combat stats on his PC sheet.)




Taking these at least out of order:

Yeah, I can see how Certificates would work more as in-the-fiction than some of the other resources. That's why I was (and kinda still am--the knowledge that they exist still seems as though it's outside the fiction, if that makes sense) ambivalent about whether they were in-fiction or out-of.

I concur that your examples in the first paragraph are in-the-fiction--though I'm less sure that non-linear narratives work super-well in TRPGs (a different question). My example with the mook being the college roommate was a more out-of-the-fiction application, I think. Your examples don't bother me--I can buy an adventurer-type having rope, or a chandelier or a familiar place being where the character is. Maybe in the instance of the chandelier there's a misunderstanding on the player's part of the architecture, in which case maybe there shouldn't be a chandelier, but looking around at the scene is a reasonable thing to do, roughly always.

Game mechanics are weird. Mechanics that define what a character can accomplish (such as dice and modifiers) don't seem as out-of-fiction to me as maybe they do to you--it seems as though the character's capabilities need to be defined, somehow. Game mechanics that force the player to act outside the character seem to give me metaphorical hives.



pemerton said:


> Here are fuller accounts of those two moments of play:




Ah. Now I understand better the context of the thumbnails you posted earlier. Thank you.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Campbell

So I think social interactions are particularly fraught in gaming because we have radically different intuitions about social dynamics. My own personal experiences in the heavy metal youth subculture, as a varsity wrestler, a former soldier, a former salesperson and a martial artist have led to radically different conceptions of how open most of us are to influence, our social autonomy, and how impacted we are by things like emotions and relationships.

Additionally the vast majority of us have never felt what is like to live on the knife's edge. Most of us have never had to interact with people who have a casual relationship with violence or have gone through the crucible of almost daily violent conflict and learned what it takes to lead men. I am phenomenally lucky that I was able to serve my country without going through that experience. The interactions I had with infantry guys and gals were uniformly positive, but they like lived in another world man.

Take a look at someone like Jocko Willink, a retired Navy Seal officer who now teaches leadership to corporate types and has a very successful podcast. He comes off as a great guy, but also freaking dangerous man. He obviously fits slightly out of polite society, but there is just something about the man that begs you to listen and really consider his words.


----------



## hawkeyefan

@Maxperson I don’t feel we can meaningfully discuss this topic, and I’d rather not continue the back and forth. I’m clearly not explaining my view properly, or you are somehow unable to understand it, so I’ll stop.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> But again, to go back to what I said prior, if something exogenous isn't imposing its will upon you (in this case the resolution mechanics) and making your conception of self subordinate to that power in this moment (as happens in real life)...and you're making an active choice to pantomime (or not) the subordination of self to that power...then how are you remotely inhabiting your PC?




So, you're saying that if I'm projecting myself into the character I'm roleplaying, in a manner similar to a novelist (or plausibly an actor, but I'm less familiar with acting and novelist seems more apropos anyway), but I don't have something on my character sheet that describes the character's internal and external conflicts in a way that allows the GM to impose things on my character, that I'm not roleplaying? That would seem to mean that in the 5E campaigns I run, when I tell the players I don't need to see the Traits and such on their sheets--that I think of them as helpful for the players, not the DM--those players aren't roleplaying (when I can see them doing it around the table). I must be misunderstanding something, because that not only seems incorrect, it seems out of character for you.



Manbearcat said:


> This is an aspect of these conversations that get extremely difficult and entangled.  It is because people claim to want (a) verisimilitude/immersion/PC habitation, (b) they want agency, and (c) they want coherent incentive structures (as you cite directly below, which I'll address in a moment).  However, you've got all of the following in a moment where a PC could legitimately have their will (through exogenous forces - social pressures perhaps - interacting with endogenous forces - the endocrine system) become subordinate to another character through mundane interaction:
> 
> 
> complete autonomy (as in your second quoted bit) in this moment which must utterly defeat the actual realities of (a) and (b)
> an incentive structure that completely pushes back against even the pantomiming of becoming mundanely charmed/intimidated/mentally undone




Yeah. It's complicated.

First, my second quoted bit isn't about wanting complete autonomy (as I understand that term). It's about wanting opposition in the fiction to feel as though it's in the fiction. The GM applying a rule to cause my character to do something doesn't feel as though it's coming from the fiction. Heck, I wouldn't even mind if a character in Champions Berserked--I paid for something with that Disadvantage, let's earn those points.

I'm also not (I think pretty clearly) objecting to my character being charmed/intimidated/mentally undone by something in the fiction. I might have moments of humorous grumbling when a game has as its only Fear Effect running in terror--my comment is always: "What about pull the trigger until it clicks?"--but in that specific instance I both understand why the rule is as it is (being frightened and panicky should not be an advantage) and am willing to play within the rules as they are.



Manbearcat said:


> This is what I was trying to get at in my prior post.  If you're just pantomiming becoming mentally undone (because you want it it "feel like my character" vs what actually happens in real life where when you succumb to something external to your conception of self...that sure as hell isn't something you identify with!...it feels as if you're a stranger to yourself!)...how is that remotely immersive...its literally the opposite of what happens in real life?  Further, you're completely discincentivized in doing so (which you cite as a problem directly below).  You don't identify this as a system issue?




Yeah. I know about this in my real life. If it's going to be in my pretend life, I need it to be tightly circumscribed; I absolutely do not need or want it to be imposed from outside the fiction.



Manbearcat said:


> I've GMed Fate somewhere around 6-10 times, so I'm quite familiar with the machinery and its context, holistically, in the game at large.  Further still, I'm very familiar with the tech as it interfaces with other systems.
> 
> You're arguing for a misaligned incentive structure here.  2 things:
> 
> 1)  I would like you to address the incentive structure issue I cite directly above (which you don't cite as an issue...particularly how it is at tension with PC habitation/immersion/verisimilitude).  I don't know how the two sit alongside each other.
> 
> 2)  With respect, I don't think you either have enough experience with Fate and/or games that have similar tech.




I GMed probably thirty or forty sessions of Spirit of the Century, in a homebrewed setting we worked up using the systems in the Dresden Files RPG, and I GMed and played probably twenty sessions of Mutants and Masterminds 2nd Edition, in which Hero Points are at least something like Fate Points. I'll admit that my personality probably isn't right for Fate, but I am not speaking from ignorance.

How is having a decision imposed on you from outside the fiction immersive? It's not arising naturally from the fiction or the GM wouldn't need to Compel you to put it there. The GM is putting it there because they want to shape the scene or the story that way.



Manbearcat said:


> a)  You're isolating one aspect of the incentive structure of Compels and the Fate Point Economy and claiming everything is downstream from that.  Its not.  The reality is, you have three other competing forces that can, and do, push back against that claim (thereby working back upstream toward some equilibrium).  (1)  Players have a conception of their character that they're interested in testing to possibly realize within the fiction.  If you accept every Compel, you're significantly diminishing those prospects (likely to completion).  (2)  Players have an interest in interesting outcomes and an obligation to the table toward interesting story creation.  This will absolutely push back toward accepting every Compel.  (3)  Players who accept every compel will get themselves into a ridiculous positive feedback loop of trouble...thereby knocking themselves out of scenes routinely...thereby actively limiting their impact on the trajectory of play overall and (1) and (2) above.
> 
> So, no, the incentive structures of the game aren't set up such that play isn't the product of this avalanche of "Compel-Acceptance" as you're forecasting it (not to mention the diminishing returns of "swimming in Fate Points" which is the paradigm you're creating here).  Its not that way before play and its certainly not that way during play.   If your limited play featured that, it had to have been a product of some serious misunderstanding of both the apex play priority of the system and the feedback loops of play by the table participants.




I liked Fate, a lot, more or less right up to the moment when I didn't, at all. 

It's possible that there was some misunderstanding of the game at the table, at some level other than rules-understanding. And it's possible that some of my frustration with Fate is shaped by that, as well as what started as a reluctance to Compel the PCs and turned into a refusal to Compel them, because of how I know I'd react to being Compelled.

My feelings on the Fate Point Economy, though, aren't based on its failures in my campaign. It seems to me as though it's too easy to break, either with scarcity or plenitude. I don't really like the interpersonal dynamics of the Compel mechanic, since it's based on the GM proposing it--unlike Hero Points in Mutants and Masterminds, where the Drawbacks and Complications come up in play and thereby generate Hero Points. Because the Fudge dice average so strongly, the only chance you have to exceed your skill level is to spend Fate Points, which makes them too valuable to use to Declare Details, which doesn't seem to make the trade (player gives up some authority over their character; GM give up some authority over the framing) worthwhile.



Manbearcat said:


> b)  There are endless examples of other systems that have competing incentive structures (like the above) that yield a dynamic play experience (both in decision-points and in the fiction that emerges from gamestate changes).  Players aren't constantly trying to fail in BW/TB and DW nor are they constantly trying to put d4 Traits/Relationships (et al) in their dice pools in Dogs nor are they constantly trying to make Action Rolls against Desperate Position in Blades because that is a significant portion of the xp > Advancement paradigm in those games.  Success is important to both your conception of your PC and the trajectory of play.  But this incentive structure tension creates a cognitive space for players (and attendant level of agency) that is filled with conflict and emotion.  "Yeah, I'm going to bring my brother's death into this situation because it emboldens me...but it also makes me reckless as hell....eff it.  For Brendon <pulls out Colt revolver>."




I have seen--and played--characters who would do essentially what you have at the end of this paragraph, in games like D&D or COC or Savage Worlds (which IIRC also doesn't have the kinds of metagame incentives you're talking about here). I personally don't see those mechanics as helpful to roleplay, or necessary. Obviously, opinions can and will vary on that.


----------



## Lanefan

Fenris-77 said:


> I disagree, at least for a game like D&D. When a player makes a declaration the DM certainly has the option to insert an "are you sure about that" moment.



Sure, but that doesn't change the commitment level of the declaration.  If the player says "No, I'm not sure" then the declaration is in effect voided and nothing happens in the fiction at all.  If the player says "Yes I'm sure" then over the side goes the PC, no questions asked.



> It's pretty standard play to outline consequences and then ask for confirmation. I don't do it all the time, but I would in cases where I suspect the player may have some misconceptions about levels of success required.



I do the same, particuarly when I'm concerned my description may have been faulty or misinterpreted.

That said, both as DM and player I've been involved in some horrific arguments over the years where no matter how much clarification and further description was given or how many "Are you sure"s were asked, the player saw one thing in his imagination while the DM was trying to describe another; and some action based on the player's interpretation that the player thought would be easy as pie ended up getting the PC killed.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> Ah but go back and look at why I brought this up in the first place. I was saying it in response to Max telling me that the DM in 5E can’t apply consequences to a failed roll. He said:
> 
> So I took the example of a jump and decided how that would work. Skidding to a halt is the only way that I can see a PC not succeed at a jump while facing no further consequences for the failure.



I think this rather obviously depends on whether failure carries any built-in consequences.

In the case of a failed jump the built-in consequence is falling or some variant thereon, which should be obvious to all involved.
In the case of failure to pick a lock the consequences might very well be nothing at all, the door or chest simply remains locked.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> So, you're saying that if I'm projecting myself into the character I'm roleplaying, in a manner similar to a novelist (or plausibly an actor, but I'm less familiar with acting and novelist seems more apropos anyway), but I don't have something on my character sheet that describes the character's internal and external conflicts in a way that allows the GM to impose things on my character, that I'm not roleplaying? That would seem to mean that in the 5E campaigns I run, when I tell the players I don't need to see the Traits and such on their sheets--that I think of them as helpful for the players, not the DM--those players aren't roleplaying (when I can see them doing it around the table). I must be misunderstanding something, because that not only seems incorrect, it seems out of character for you.




Don't have time to read and comment on the other parts of the post, but I wanted to clarify this right quick before I leave.

Misunderstanding.

I used immersion/habitation/verisimilitude rather than roleplaying because they are discrete things from one another.  The prior 3 are states of mind/being/emotion while the latter is a discipline.  One can be playing a roleplaying game and one can roleplay with those prior 3 states reduced or missing entirely (like someone operationalizing a formula).

Further, many on this site and in this conversation (I'm pretty sure you amongst them) have championed those states of mind/being/emotion as a virtue or even a play priority (perhaps THE apex play priority) of your gaming.

So my take on the machinery here is as follows:

* Being compelled to act outside of one's conception of self (or even one's own self-interest) by exogenous, mundane forces is fundamental to being a highly evolved social animal like a human.  

* Being mundanely compelled by an exogenous force is not volitional.

* If TTRPGs want this experience to emulate the emotional/mental state (both in the moment and upon review) of this social transaction, thereby engendering habitation, then the resolution machinery needs to also be non-volitional.

* Having a choice (to decide to pantomime a state or refuse to pantomime) is volitional.

* Therefore non-volitional resolution and imposition of state is cognitively much closer to what happens in real life and therefore has as good a chance as there can be to engender habitation while resolution that comes with volition and the choice to pantomime (or not) can't possibly engender habitation.



Hopefully that is more clear.  TLDR:

Habitation is not roleplaying (and vice versa).


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> First, why can’t the DM just give all the mechanical info to the players? The way you preface that idea with “unless” makes it sound like you think this typically shouldn’t be done. Why not?



Because the PCs in the fiction wouldn't know this info except in the most general of terms, thus the players at the table shouldn't know it either except in the same most general of terms.

The dragon's scales look thick, hard and tough.

That's what the PCs see, so that's all the players need to know.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> Don't have time to read and comment on the other parts of the post, but I wanted to clarify this right quick before I leave.
> 
> Misunderstanding.
> 
> I used immersion/habitation/verisimilitude rather than roleplaying because they are discrete things from one another.  The prior 3 are states of mind/being/emotion while the latter is a discipline.  One can be playing a roleplaying game and one can roleplay with those prior 3 states reduced or missing entirely (like someone operationalizing a formula).
> 
> Further, many on this site and in this conversation (I'm pretty sure you amongst them) have championed those states of mind/being/emotion as a virtue or even a play priority (perhaps THE apex play priority) of your gaming.




I figured I was misunderstanding you, because for the reasons I mentioned it didn't seem plausible that you were saying what my brain was telling me you were saying. Thanks for clearing that up. If anything else in my earlier response seems overly defensive, please take that misunderstanding into account.



Manbearcat said:


> So my take on the machinery here is as follows:
> 
> * Being compelled to act outside of one's conception of self (or even one's own self-interest) by exogenous, mundane forces is fundamental to being a highly evolved social animal like a human.
> 
> * Being mundanely compelled by an exogenous force is not volitional.
> 
> * If TTRPGs want this experience to emulate the emotional/mental state (both in the moment and upon review) of this social transaction, thereby engendering habitation, then the resolution machinery needs to also be non-volitional.
> 
> * Having a choice (to decide to pantomime a state or refuse to pantomime) is volitional.
> 
> * Therefore non-volitional resolution and imposition of state is cognitively much closer to what happens in real life and therefore has as good a chance as there can be to engender habitation while resolution that comes with volition and the choice to pantomime (or not) can't possibly engender habitation.
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully that is more clear.  TLDR:
> 
> Habitation is not roleplaying (and vice versa).




Yes, I'm probably one of the people you're thinking of, who's described being in the character as a preferred play priority.

Yes. I agree that it is possible to be motivated--possibly even compelled--by forces inside and outside the character, and that that motivation or compulsion isn't strictly a matter of choice. I agree that immersion and habitation are different things from roleplaying--possibly helpful, but different. Verisimilitude is less a state of mind to me, but I'll agree that something "seeming realistic" (as opposed to "being realistic") is different from roleplaying.

I don't think I believe that in order to project oneself into a character, to understand that character, to behave in-fiction as they would, it's necessary to have those compulsions applied from outside the game. Any writer of fiction who has been surprised by the behavior of a character whose story he was writing seems likely to understand my point of view, here: I've recently been surprised by the decisions of at least one character I was playing, who ended up behaving in arguably suboptimal ways that made some sense looking back.

Even if compulsion from outside the fiction was a good way to model the forces you're talking about, I'm not sure it would make for good game play, and it might not make for verisimilitude for a player who doesn't know about (or buy) the current neuroscience--it's not going to seem believable to them if it doesn't fit their theory of mind.


----------



## prabe

Lanefan said:


> Because the PCs in the fiction wouldn't know this info except in the most general of terms, thus the players at the table shouldn't know it either except in the same most general of terms.
> 
> The dragon's scales look thick, hard and tough.
> 
> That's what the PCs see, so that's all the players need to know.




Before they start the fight, sure. After a round or two, though, I don't see the harm if the players know the AC--it streamlines combat resolution some if they don't need to ask if they hit. It adds up around a large table.


----------



## Fenris-77

Lanefan said:


> Sure, but that doesn't change the commitment level of the declaration.  If the player says "No, I'm not sure" then the declaration is in effect voided and nothing happens in the fiction at all.  If the player says "Yes I'm sure" then over the side goes the PC, no questions asked.
> 
> I do the same, particularly when I'm concerned my description may have been faulty or misinterpreted.



Well, sure, once the player is sure then game on, but I was just pointing out the safety net between A and B, assuming that you used it, just for the sake of clarity. The extent to which I'll prevaricate to give the player time to consider really depends on the specific action and consequences. To circle back to a point @Maxperson made, I tend to not be specific about details. In the jumping example I might say _the chasm looks pretty wide, you think you'd need help or an extraordinary success to make the jump._ Sort of indexing PbtAs 'don't speak the name of your move' maxim. I'd only start talking about specific rules if asked a specific question, and I try like mad to avoid talking about specific measurements. Once you give a distance you're locked into the jumping rules. If the player wants to have a dramatic moment leaping the chasm that's more important to me than whether the thing happens to be 20' or 25' across. I know that's not everyone's taste, but that's how I roll.


Lanefan said:


> That said, both as DM and player I've been involved in some horrific arguments over the years where no matter how much clarification and further description was given or how many "Are you sure"s were asked, the player saw one thing in his imagination while the DM was trying to describe another; and some action based on the player's interpretation that the player thought would be easy as pie ended up getting the PC killed.



Natural selection has to take a role somewhere, right? You can't save everyone. I let my son's Gnome Bard get his ass kicked in a bar because he wouldn't back off insulting the regulars. Sometimes ya gotta learn the hard way.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> This doesn't bother me the way that having the GM tell me what my character does, does. This effect is how this monster works



This sentence is hard for me to parse, because when (in the fiction) the Gorechain devil treats another person as a marionette, in the real world, at the table, _the GM will be telling a player what that player's character does_.



prabe said:


> Someone from outside the fiction (such as the GM, or even another player) reaching in to impose their story on my character: That bothers me, greatly. The difference feels clear in my mind, and I hope it's clear in the words.



It's not the least bit clear to me.

In Fate, for instance, if the GM offers a compel, then in the ficiton _something is tempting or motivating your character_. Or, perhaps, _something about your character is motivating others_.



prabe said:


> So ... the item is cursed because the character failed to identify it?



No, the item is cursed because it was stolen from a mummy's tomb. And the character _did _read its aura - that's how he learned that it is cursed!

To be clear, those are propositions stated within the context of the fiction.

In the real workd, the item doesn't exist but various actions of rolling dice, comparing numbers of successes to target numbers, narrating imaginary things and events, etc really do take place. I as GM narrated that the item is cursed because the player made a roll and failed (ie didn't meet the target number for success).



prabe said:


> That's an ... interesting mechanic. I'm pondering how that possibility would affect my decision-making in-game. I think--and this is about me, not about your table or even really the game--that it would gradually erode my suspension of disbelief somewhat as a player
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I have a question about your term "RPG-as-puzzle": what exactly do you mean by that?



The answer to the question is in the previous quoted paragraph.

If the GM already decides that the angel feather that the PC will find at the bazaar is cursed, then the game becomes a puzzle: the player has to work out whether or not the angel feather his/her PC has purchased is cursed.

Well-known examples of RPGs and allied game forms which feature a fair bit of this: Tomb of Horrors; any dungeon designed along the lines set out by Moldvay and Gygax in their well-known and classic D&D rulebooks; Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks like Warlock of Firetop Mountan and The Forest of Doom.

Using the approach to narration that I have illustrated in my example of play does not have even a hint of this. The player doesn't need to solve puzzles. S/he needs to inhabit his/her PC and engage the fiction.


----------



## Ovinomancer

I understand @prabe's argument, I think, and see why it's hard to explain or pin down.  If I may be forgiven, I'm going to attempt a different formulation of it.

Means matter.  @prabe prefers that the fictional attempt at control be established first, then resolved, then the loss of agency being applied to the next fictional state.  Things like FATE Compels start with the resolution, then establishes all of the fiction.  The order of these things matters to @prabe.

I see it.  I don't share this view because this particular set of means doesn't resonate with me.  We're playing a game that uses all kinds of extra-fictional resolutions, but if you get used to a certain set of these so that they become normal (like becoming adjusted to how D&D plays) then it can be difficult to adopt a different frame of reference.  Or, you might just not like the other frame of reference.  It's totally a preference thing -- you like what you like.  It can be frustrating when the difference between two viewpoints seems small and unimportant from one vantage but very important from the other.  This topic of discussion is exactly this -- from my and @Manbearcat and others point of view, this is a rather unimportant distinction.  From @prabe's, it's critical.  I happen to still recall the fairly recent past when I would have been on @prabe's side of this discussion and not @Manbearcat's, so it's easy for me to recall what I had trouble with and then analyze it with my newer understandings.  

I think @prabe has a valid point of view that's difficult to explain if you don't also understand the other because you can't find the words to explain it to someone that just doesn't quite see it at all.  Kudos to all involved for keeping this discussion as drama-free as it has been, but double kudos to @prabe for this, because I very much understand how easy it is to feel like your likes are being attacked, and you've avoided that very well.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> This sentence is hard for me to parse, because when (in the fiction) the Gorechain devil treats another person as a marionette, in the real world, at the table, _the GM will be telling a player what that player's character does_.
> 
> It's not the least bit clear to me.
> 
> In Fate, for instance, if the GM offers a compel, then in the ficiton _something is tempting or motivating your character_. Or, perhaps, _something about your character is motivating others_.




I'll try it again, because there's a distinction that's clear in my head that I apparently haven't been able to make clear to you--I don't need or expect or even want you to agree with me, just to understand.

Effects that come from the in-fiction opposition--things like being charmed or paralyzed or petrified or dominated or frightened (I know that's a negative condition in 3.x and 5E, don't know about 4E) or whatever, coming from what my character in the fiction is encountering in the fiction, such as a harpy or a gorgon or an illithid or a dragon--do not bother me at all. They are happening to my in-fiction character in the fiction, because of other things in the fiction that are behaving according to their natures as established in the fiction. The marionette-style dominate effect/attack described as something the Gorechain Devil does, as something that happens in the fiction of the game, wouldn't bother me. I would think of the DM in that instance as reporting what is happening (yes, I know he's running the Gorechain Devil, and he's deciding to use that attack, and he's choosing to target my character with it--it's his job to put things in between my character and my character's goals, and if he's running the Gorechain Devil that way, he's doing his job). Even something like a Berserk Disadvantage in Champions, where every time X happens you need to roll to see if your character starts attacking everyone and everything around them, doesn't bother me, because the events that trigger the Berserk chance arise in the fiction.

Effects that come from around the table--whether they come from the GM or another player--things like Compels in Fate, or the strings or whatever in Monsterhearts, or IIRC the various ways Stress is applied to characters by the GM in Blades in the Dark--bother the heck out of me, because though they represent things in the fiction (I'm clear on that, really) they aren't emerging naturally from the events in-fiction; they're emerging because someone else around the table has decided to use them to force my character's story to change. Yes, I know that a Fate GM's job is to offer Compels to my character, and I know the other players in Monsterhearts have among their jobs to pull on my character's strings--that doesn't change how I feel about it, though. The closest thing I can come up with for why is Chekhov's Gun (if a gun is onstage in the first two acts, it must be fired in the third; if a gun is fired in the third act, it must be onstage in the first two): Whatever effect is being placed onto my character by GM as GM (not as opposition) or fellow player (not as character) by metagame mechanics does not feel to me as though it is emerging naturally from the events preceding it; it feels as though a gun is appearing onstage during the third act.



pemerton said:


> No, the item is cursed because it was stolen from a mummy's tomb. And the character _did _read its aura - that's how he learned that it is cursed!




So, what happened in the fiction was that the character read the feather's aura and discovered it was cursed. What happened at/around the table was that the player rolled dice and didn't get a result that gave him (the player) authority to declare what the feather was, so the feather's properties were determined ... I'm guessing by table concensus? So the test to read the aura wasn't about properties the feather had, as established previously in-fiction (whether in play or in notes) but instead about who was going to decide what its properties were?

Is that a more accurate description?



pemerton said:


> To be clear, those are propositions stated within the context of the fiction.
> 
> In the real workd, the item doesn't exist but various actions of rolling dice, comparing numbers of successes to target numbers, narrating imaginary things and events, etc really do take place. I as GM narrated that the item is cursed because the player made a roll and failed (ie didn't meet the target number for success).




I'm clear on the difference between fiction and reality. Thank you. If I am talking about something in fiction having an objective reality, it's because the word for what really happens in. e.g., a novel, as opposed to what, e.g., an unreliable narrator tells you happens, has fallen out of my head, apparently irretrievably. I know there's a word, but I can't remember it (and it might be obscure enough that even using it might not help with communication.



pemerton said:


> If the GM already decides that the angel feather that the PC will find at the bazaar is cursed, then the game becomes a puzzle: the player has to work out whether or not the angel feather his/her PC has purchased is cursed.
> 
> Well-known examples of RPGs and allied game forms which feature a fair bit of this: Tomb of Horrors; any dungeon designed along the lines set out by Moldvay and Gygax in their well-known and classic D&D rulebooks; Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks like Warlock of Firetop Mountan and The Forest of Doom.
> 
> Using the approach to narration that I have illustrated in my example of play does not have even a hint of this. The player doesn't need to solve puzzles. S/he needs to inhabit his/her PC and engage the fiction.




So, if something exists in the fiction, and it wasn't put there around the table, that's something you'd describe as RPG-as-puzzle? That seems to imply that if I as a GM decide anything about a scene and don't tell the players about it, it's instantly RPG-as-puzzle, which (heh) puzzles me.


----------



## prabe

@Ovinomancer 

Thank you for that. You seem to have it.

I'll say that I think I understand what Fate is doing with Compels, it just is like fingernails on a blackboard. It seems visceral enough that I suspect it connects to whatever broken bits are rattling around in my head.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> I think this rather obviously depends on whether failure carries any built-in consequences.
> 
> In the case of a failed jump the built-in consequence is falling or some variant thereon, which should be obvious to all involved.
> In the case of failure to pick a lock the consequences might very well be nothing at all, the door or chest simply remains locked.




Yeah, I wouldn’t disagree with that. My point has been that it’s the DM who decides what the consequences of a failed check. Yeah, sometimes those are obvious, other times they’re not. 



Lanefan said:


> Because the PCs in the fiction wouldn't know this info except in the most general of terms, thus the players at the table shouldn't know it either except in the same most general of terms.
> 
> The dragon's scales look thick, hard and tough.
> 
> That's what the PCs see, so that's all the players need to know.




The PCs are experiencing the fiction. The players are experiencing a game. Game mechanics are meant to be an expression of the fiction. I don’t have any problem sharing the mechanics with the players. In fact, I think it’s my responsibility to do so. This way the players are as informed as the PCs. 

Does this mean that I always share every single score or value? No, not necessarily....there may be times when it makes sense to not share. But there are plenty of times where sharing those details does the work of making the players as informed as their characters.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> The PCs are experiencing the fiction. The players are experiencing a game. Game mechanics are meant to be an expression of the fiction. I don’t have any problem sharing the mechanics with the players. In fact, I think it’s my responsibility to do so. This way the players are as informed as the PCs.



Often, however, that way the players end up more informed than the PCs.

Both the players at the table and the PCs in the fiction more or less know what sort of defensive ability a knight in plate mail and shield is going to have, as they can simply compare it with how those same defenses function on in-party PCs either past or present: "Hell, this guy's going to be as hard to hurt as Gretta used to be when she ran with us".  Here the description, player knowledge, and character knowledge are quite reasonably going to agree; with the only unknown variables being any enchantments on the knight's armour bits, or on the knight himself.

When I describe a Troll's rubbery hide, though, or the thick tough-looking scales of a Dragon, I neither want nor expect the players to immediately leap to a hard numerical AC value, for a few reasons: one, the PCs don't think in numbers; two, the PCs probably haven't met enough of these creatures to be able to generalize; and three, thinking in numbers really breaks the 'fourth wall'.

Sure they might figure the actual AC value out after a few rounds of combat - as a player I find myself doing this far too often, and get mad at myself every time for doing it.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> Often, however, that way the players end up more informed than the PCs.
> 
> Both the players at the table and the PCs in the fiction more or less know what sort of defensive ability a knight in plate mail and shield is going to have, as they can simply compare it with how those same defenses function on in-party PCs either past or present: "Hell, this guy's going to be as hard to hurt as Gretta used to be when she ran with us".  Here the description, player knowledge, and character knowledge are quite reasonably going to agree; with the only unknown variables being any enchantments on the knight's armour bits, or on the knight himself.
> 
> When I describe a Troll's rubbery hide, though, or the thick tough-looking scales of a Dragon, I neither want nor expect the players to immediately leap to a hard numerical AC value, for a few reasons: one, the PCs don't think in numbers; two, the PCs probably haven't met enough of these creatures to be able to generalize; and three, thinking in numbers really breaks the 'fourth wall'.
> 
> Sure they might figure the actual AC value out after a few rounds of combat - as a player I find myself doing this far too often, and get mad at myself every time for doing it.




I absolutely get that approach. I used to be very much that way myself. I’ve loosened up over the past several years and I’ve found that the things that I was worried about weren’t nearly as big a problem as I had thought they may be, and also that our play became more focused and my players more decisive, which I hadn’t really anticipated, but which was a nice surprise.

That stuff doesn’t really break the fourth wall for me so much as it gives it a reference point that I can immediately grasp.


----------



## Fenris-77

AC is kind of tough from a descriptive standpoint because it isn't really indexed to anything specific, or rather it's indexed to a bunch of different things . This is especially evident in the platemail example, or indeed fighters in general. The actual skill of the fighter doesn't really impact how easy or hard he is to hit. That part is modeled with Hit Points. With plate, it makes at least a certain amount of intuitive sense that landing a telling blow would mean getting past the plate. However, in the case of a master duelist in leathers, it doesn't make much sense at all, or at least not as much sense. To make matters worse, some of the skill indexed stuff, like fighting styles and feat, _does_ directly impact AC. D&D just can't make up its mind.

It would be intuitive to think that overcoming the skill of the swordsman would be in the initial barrier to landing a telling blow, but it isn't. Don't get me wrong, the system does what it's supposed to, it just doesn't always lend itself to easy description. Not compared to some other systems anyway.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Fenris-77 said:


> AC is kind of tough from a descriptive standpoint because it isn't really indexed to anything specific, or rather it's indexed to a bunch of different things . This is especially evident in the platemail example, or indeed fighters in general. The actual skill of the fighter doesn't really impact how easy or hard he is to hit. That part is modeled with Hit Points. With plate, it makes at least a certain amount of intuitive sense that landing a telling blow would mean getting past the plate. However, in the case of a master duelist in leathers, it doesn't make much sense at all, or at least not as much sense. To make matters worse, some of the skill indexed stuff, like fighting styles and feat, _does_ directly impact AC. D&D just can't make up its mind.
> 
> It would be intuitive to think that overcoming the skill of the swordsman would be in the initial barrier to landing a telling blow, but it isn't. Don't get me wrong, the system does what it's supposed to, it just doesn't always lend itself to easy description. Not compared to some other systems anyway.



Yup.  Quite often D&D requires you to abstract while it encourages you to be specific.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> Your argument is that there's a division of agency, one of which is agency over declaring actions.  In this framework, agency over declaring actions isn't abridged because the player was allowed to declare the action.  Therefore agency wasn't abridged.




Not quite.  Just that one particular type of agency wasn't abridged.



> The issues I have with your argument (and correct it where it is wrong, please, I've done my best) is that I disagree that it's a valid to separate agency over declaring actions from agency in general.  I've followed this up by showing the definition of agency used by many to be not only making choices but also having the ability to see those choices come true.  Not guarantee, but ability.  In this framework, declaring an action is a necessary but not sufficient part of agency.  If I cannot declare actions, then I have no agency.  If I can, then we have to continue to look to see if agency is sustained.  My framework includes yours, it just continues to go further.  Applying this to the OP, we can see that the player did indeed declare the action -- so we're good so far, a choice was made and a proposal was made.  However, the GM decided unilaterally to say no.  The player has no ability to see the declared action come true -- no chance at all.  And so, agency is not present.




The only reason yours may go further is that we haven't sit down and defined those other types of agency yet.  I think both frameworks are valid (they both include each other) but that mine has benefits that yours does not.  In mine we can talk about agency more precisely.  We can talk about the exact place each type of agency fails.  We can talk about whether a game has agency of types A, B, C, D but not E and contrast that with games using other combinations of agency.  In your framework that's really not possible.  The other benefit is that it let's us more accurately discuss and pinpoint when there is a disagreement about a specific type of agency and where that disagreement is coming from.  Is someone rejecting a type of agency as valid.  Are people talking about 2 different types of agency, etc.  I think the basic concept has already done a lot for this conversation in keeping people from talking past each other.



> And, that's not, in and of itself, bad.  It just is.  We need to go to look to see if this instance of play enforces the play goals the table wants or if it runs counter to them.  I can't say if the action was good or bad for the OP's table, although indications are that it was bad as at least one player expressed unhappiness.  I can say it would be bad at my table because it wouldn't enforce my table's play goals -- specifically mine, as I strive to avoid hidden dead-ends in my prep and play.  That's just my preference.




I think the same thing can be done with types of agency and be even more illuminating.



> Secondly, even if we do accept your premise that agency over action declaration is a separate thing, we still need to evaluate the separate agency involved in the resolution.  If we accept that agency is fulfilled at the action declaration stage, that doesn't mean other kinds of agency were denied.  In this case, the GM choosing to auto-fail the action means that the player has no agency over the fiction -- again, there's no chance this action could ever succeed due to the GM's appraisal of the fact pattern.  So I could, accepting your argument as true, say that agency over action declaration is present and uninhibited, but I would be wrong to say that all agency is present and uninhibited in the play example.




I mostly agree with the part about evaluating the type of agency you are referring to here as well.  I think there's a problem with the notion of auto-fail.  I use that phrase to differentiate between a DM deciding an action fails and having a chance to make an ability check and having the dice determine failure.  With that said let's evaluate this type of agency.

I think there's a major difference in terms of agency when a DM takes the information in the fiction and his notes and makes a decision about success, failure or uncertainty while only taking into account those things.  I think that's much different than a DM ignoring that information and ruling success or failure so that the players will be in a future position he thinks will be better.  To me it's clear the DM in the OP was at least attempting to do the prior.  Anyways, back to the agency question.  From this analysis it seems to me the difference between a DM's decisions taking away agency and not taking away agency is one of Force.  A DM deciding from fiction and notes whether something fails involves no forcing on his part.  Whereas a DM making rulings to get the outcomes he wants is forcing.  IMO That's the essential difference here and why I say that a DM ruling failure is not necessarily taking away player agency.



> Finally, if we make and accept the argument that only agency over the character's action declarations matters, then we're left in the position that a railroad has exactly as much player agency as a fully-open sandbox (to stay with D&D styles of play).  Both involve the same amount of being able to declare actions for your character.




My position isn't that only agency over character's action declarations matters.  It's more that I view it as the most important type of agency for an RPG.



> In summation, even if your argument is accepted that agency means being able to make action declarations for your PC, it has some pretty major hurdles to overcome to be a meaningful tool to evaluate how games work.  On the other hand, my framework handles all of this without having to invoke separate bundles of agency and do separate analyses.  The key component to my framework, though, is _that it is not a value statement_.   The value regarding the reduction or increase of player agency is if it meets the play goals of the game.  I'd clearly say that GM deciding auto-failure is an important tool in 5e to meet the play goals and play structure of the game.  I can't say that saying no is a bad action absent context.  I find a tool it better when it can make an assessment that is both differentiating (which I don't find yours to be) and nonjudgemental.  A tool should be informative, like a ruler.  I can measure a piece of wood and I'll get an answer from a ruler.  I might not like the answer, though, which is a value judgement that ruler didn't make.




I think your too narrowly defining my argument here.  I would only say that if you have at least 1 type of agency that you have some agency, not that you have Agency.  In fact, one interesting piece of my framework when it matures will be evaluating what all types of agency make up what typically gets referred to as Agency.

Also, my framework isn't a value statement either.  But it does enable people to talk about the types of agency they value in games.  It's not inherently about labeling one more important than another.  I would say that the value regarding the combination of agency and their reduction or increase is if that meets the play goals of the game.  A DM determining if something fails is an important tool (and we can even discuss whether that tool necessitates a player losing a particular type of agency).

I'm curious how you find types of agency not differentiating.  It seems to me like that is even more levels of differentiation than you are used to talking about the concept in.  Maybe you can elaborate here?  Why would discussing types of agency not be comparable to having a ruler with which to make measurements?

One final thing that is on my mind.  Disagreeing with your position does not entail that someone only thinks of agency as a positive.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> It seems as though you associate it with bad-faith GMing and/or a degenerate form of play, and it seems as though it comes up a lot around things I don't see as either.



_If the goal is to collectively contribute to a shared fiction with dramatic trajectory_, then I think it is tending towards a degenerate form of play.

_If the GM says that player agency will have a big impact on the game_, then I think it is tending towards bad faith.

If the goal is for the players to learn how the GM imagines the fictional world, and to put pieces of that together to come up with solutions to in-fiction questions and problems, then puzzle-orinted RPGing is just what the doctor ordered. I think a lot of RPGIng seems to have something like this as its goal (some examples: most Ravenloft modules I've read; the 3E module Speaker in Dreams; the 3E Demonweb Pits hardback; most Planescape modules I've read).

If the GMing is vibrant and evocative, then I can enjoy this in modest doses (eg a convention one-off). But I would like the GM to be upfront. Don't tell me that I can have a big impact on the shared fiction, and then set me these sorts of puzzles to solve.


----------



## Maxperson

prabe said:


> Before they start the fight, sure. After a round or two, though, I don't see the harm if the players know the AC--it streamlines combat resolution some if they don't need to ask if they hit. It adds up around a large table.



The to hit rolls will clue them in on that.  With 4 PCs and to hit rolls being used by most classes, it doesn't take them long to figure out AC.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> @Maxperson I don’t feel we can meaningfully discuss this topic, and I’d rather not continue the back and forth. I’m clearly not explaining my view properly, or you are somehow unable to understand it, so I’ll stop.



Sure.  But I'll say that I understand and I just don't agree, which should be apparent from my responses.


----------



## pemerton

hawkeyefan said:


> The PCs are experiencing the fiction. The players are experiencing a game. Game mechanics are meant to be an expression of the fiction. I don’t have any problem sharing the mechanics with the players. In fact, I think it’s my responsibility to do so. This way the players are as informed as the PCs.
> 
> Does this mean that I always share every single score or value? No, not necessarily....there may be times when it makes sense to not share. But there are plenty of times where sharing those details does the work of making the players as informed as their characters.



It's different from moment-to-moment and system to system.

Eg in 4e D&D there are PC abilities (ie skill bonuses to Monster Knowledge checks) that allow players to learn mechanical information about NPCs and creatures. So I tend not to share that information too freely outside the context of such checks, because there is one PC which has been deliberately built so as to have excellent bonuses to Monster Knowledge checks. This isn't a decision about pacing or suspense; it's about respecting player build choices.

In Prince Valiant there is no comparable mechanical framework to Monster Knowledge checks, and the system for building dice pools for opposed checks is very straightforward, so I will count it out to the players as I pick up the dice: _Your opponent has such-and-such Brawn <pick up B dice>, such-and-such Arms <add A dcie), is wearing heavy armour <now I've got A+B+3 dice> and is riding a fine steed <and now I've got A+B+4 dice>_.

This does not spoil suspense. That resides in seeing how the two pools look as the dice hit the table (the shaking of the dice corresponds to the thunder of hooves down the lists).


----------



## FrogReaver

pemerton said:


> What is an example you have in mind of "lack of that correspndence"?
> 
> EG in Traveller, if your PC fails a morale check you either surrender or flee. That's because your PC has lost control of him-/herself.




I think most any metagame style mechanic would qualify as an example but I don't know most of your style of games to offer a good example.  The specific example from Traveler above isn't such an example.  It is an example where a character losing his fictional agency corresponds to a player losing his agency over their actions.

5e has a similar mechanic of fear that some particularly dangerous monsters have.  The implementation is a bit different but same notion I suppose.  Such a fear effect in D&D is generally viewed as being magical.  That's important IMO.  Magic in D&D is essentially a trump card that allows any other design sensibilities to be bypassed.  As such it always has a heavy enough fictional weight to provide an in-fiction justification for removing any kind of agency.  As such I think for D&D play it's good to look at the kinds of agency that are strongly recognized in it before magic gets involved.

D&D strongly supported types of player agency:
1.  Agency over your characters thoughts
2.  Agency over your characters actions
3.  Agency over the fiction (via in fiction elements)
***It should be noted that magic is supreme over all types of player agency.

The issue someone coming from D&D to Traveler might have with the above mechanic is that it takes away agency over their characters thoughts and actions (without using the unifying trump card of magic).  That is, it's not just about agency, but also of how and why it gets reduced.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> First, my second quoted bit isn't about wanting complete autonomy (as I understand that term). It's about wanting opposition in the fiction to feel as though it's in the fiction. The GM applying a rule to cause my character to do something doesn't feel as though it's coming from the fiction.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> How is having a decision imposed on you from outside the fiction immersive? It's not arising naturally from the fiction or the GM wouldn't need to Compel you to put it there. The GM is putting it there because they want to shape the scene or the story that way.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I have seen--and played--characters who would do essentially what you have at the end of this paragraph, in games like D&D or COC or Savage Worlds (which IIRC also doesn't have the kinds of metagame incentives you're talking about here). I personally don't see those mechanics as helpful to roleplay, or necessary.





prabe said:


> I agree that it is possible to be motivated--possibly even compelled--by forces inside and outside the character, and that that motivation or compulsion isn't strictly a matter of choice.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't think I believe that in order to project oneself into a character, to understand that character, to behave in-fiction as they would, it's necessary to have those compulsions applied from outside the game. Any writer of fiction who has been surprised by the behavior of a character whose story he was writing seems likely to understand my point of view, here: I've recently been surprised by the decisions of at least one character I was playing, who ended up behaving in arguably suboptimal ways that made some sense looking back.
> 
> Even if compulsion from outside the fiction was a good way to model the forces you're talking about, I'm not sure it would make for good game play, and it might not make for verisimilitude



There's stuff in here that, it seems to me, would benefit from unpacking.

*(1) *Why is a compel not arising naturally from the fiction? The examples I'm familiar with from the rulebook seem to. For instance, p 14 of Fate Core has Landon's player accepting a compel on the aspect The Manners of a Goat, so that when he dances with a refined guest at the ball, he offends her. This seems very close to a CHA check in 5e D&D to determine the NPC's reaction, except instead of rolling a die and applying a CHA mod, the player elects to auto-fail and takes a Fate point. The example goes on to say that "Amanda [the GM] and Lenny [the player] play a bit to figure out how Landon puts his foot in his mouth". Now I think there's room in both the Fate and the D&D example to talk about when the best time is to invoke the mechanics - when the PC or NPC meet, or somewhere into that roleplay? That will be very dependent on context, but I think there's a case to be made that the Fate GM has gone a couple of sentences too early.

But I don't see any issue about it not following from the fiction.

*(2) *You seem to be equating _compulsion from outside the character's rational choices_ with _compulsion from outside the fiction_. I don't think this is a warranted equation. Landon does not say something offensive to the ball guest because of a compulsion that comes from outside the fiction. (The only RPG I know of that embraces something like that is Over the Edge.) It is because, despite his best efforts and perhaps his best judgement, Landon says rude or offensive things. The GM is playing Landon's inability to help himself. The player is playing Landon's rational agency. And the player - within the game's incentive structures which include the Fate point economy - decides which wins.

*(3)* I'm not sure what you mean when yuou say that your character _ended up behaving in arguably suboptimal ways. _Are you talking about _suboptimal within the fiction _ ie the character sabotaged his/her own goals? This is what Landon does if Landon's player takes the Fate point; the Fate point economy is intended to make this a richer and more intense aspect of game play. Eg and as@Manbearcat has posted, it makes it _costly_ (ie paying a Fate point) for rational will to triumph over irrational or self-defeating habit or inclination or personality trait. This is a real-world experience of what, in the fiction, is the making of an effort by the character.

If you mean _suboptimal in the real world_, as in, _in making those decisions you undermined you own goals as a RPGer_, then that seems curious and I don't quite follow.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> _If the goal is to collectively contribute to a shared fiction with dramatic trajectory_, then I think it is tending towards a degenerate form of play.
> 
> _If the GM says that player agency will have a big impact on the game_, then I think it is tending towards bad faith.
> 
> If the goal is for the players to learn how the GM imagines the fictional world, and to put pieces of that together to come up with solutions to in-fiction questions and problems, then puzzle-orinted RPGing is just what the doctor ordered. I think a lot of RPGIng seems to have something like this as its goal (some examples: most Ravenloft modules I've read; the 3E module Speaker in Dreams; the 3E Demonweb Pits hardback; most Planescape modules I've read).
> 
> If the GMing is vibrant and evocative, then I can enjoy this in modest doses (eg a convention one-off). But I would like the GM to be upfront. Don't tell me that I can have a big impact on the shared fiction, and then set me these sorts of puzzles to solve.




It sounds as though you would describe the campaigns I DM as tending toward both bad-faith GMing and degenerate play, which at least means you very probably wouldn't enjoy them. No wonder we sometimes seem to have such a hard time communicating.


----------



## pemerton

Ovinomancer said:


> Means matter.  @prabe prefers that the fictional attempt at control be established first, then resolved, then the loss of agency being applied to the next fictional state.  Things like FATE Compels start with the resolution, then establishes all of the fiction.  The order of these things matters to @prabe.



I have no trouble seeing this. Ron Edwards wrote good stuff about it The Forge :: Simulationism: The Right to Dream - my main lens for engaging with Edwards on time sequence in simulationist play is 20-odd years of Rolemaster play.

In my post just upthread I actually picked up on the issue of timing in the Fate Core p 14 example.

In that post I also noted that the same thing can routinely happen in D&D play - first the reaction or CHA check is rolled, and then the appropriate fiction is established. And when it comes to D&D combat, with hp ablation as the principal mechanic, the same time sequnce is practically mandatory. We don't know what has happened in the fiction until the resolution is well and truly done.

EDITed to fix the hyperlink.


----------



## FrozenNorth

pemerton said:


> I've never played or GMed Fate. Is it considered good GMing practice to compel someone when they have no Fate point? My gut feel is that the more conventional thing would be to compel them to tempt them into spending their last point.



From memory, Compelling a player who has no Fate points is good GMing, not bad.  Following the Compel, the player receives the Fate point and is therefore able to continue to participate in the Fate economy: failing to fo so simply shuts the Player out.


----------



## hawkeyefan

pemerton said:


> It's different from moment-to-moment and system to system.




For sure. I had been talking primarily about D&D 5E. Generally speaking, I think it’s good to share mechanics unless there’s a compelling reason not to do so. Which there certainly can be. My feeling is those instances should probably be less frequent than many others might think.

Other games will vary for sure. My recent experiences GMing games other than 5E D&D have all been pretty transparent mechanically. Blades in the Dark and the Alien RPG being the two that most immediately spring to mind.


----------



## FrogReaver

pemerton said:


> In that post I also noted that the same thing can routinely happen in D&D play - first the reaction or CHA check is rolled, and then the appropriate fiction is established. And when it comes to D&D combat, with hp ablation as the principal mechanic, the same time sequnce is practically mandatory. We don't know what has happened in the fiction until the resolution is well and truly done.




I think you are going to have to be more specific here.  An example would help tremendously.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> *(1) *Why is a compel not arising naturally from the fiction? The examples I'm familiar with from the rulebook seem to. For instance, p 14 of Fate Core has Landon's player accepting a compel on the aspect The Manners of a Goat, so that when he dances with a refined guest at the ball, he offends her. This seems very close to a CHA check in 5e D&D to determine the NPC's reaction, except instead of rolling a die and applying a CHA mod, the player elects to auto-fail and takes a Fate point. The example goes on to say that "Amanda [the GM] and Lenny [the player] play a bit to figure out how Landon puts his foot in his mouth". Now I think there's room in both the Fate and the D&D example to talk about when the best time is to invoke the mechanics - when the PC or NPC meet, or somewhere into that roleplay? That will be very dependent on context, but I think there's a case to be made that the Fate GM has gone a couple of sentences too early.




To paraphrase what @Ovinomancer said upthread, I strongly prefer things that cause my character to behave against their will (or at least against their better judgment) to start from inside the fiction, not from outside the fiction/around the table. I'd argue that a low-CHA character making a check would have a better chance than a Fate character whose player accepts a Compel.



pemerton said:


> *(2) *You seem to be equating _compulsion from outside the character's rational choices_ with _compulsion from outside the fiction_. I don't think this is a warranted equation. Landon does not say something offensive to the ball guest because of a compulsion that comes from outside the fiction. (The only RPG I know of that embraces something like that is Over the Edge.) It is because, despite his best efforts and perhaps his best judgement, Landon says rude or offensive things. The GM is playing Landon's inability to help himself. The player is playing Landon's rational agency. And the player - within the game's incentive structures which include the Fate point economy - decides which wins.




No, Landon says something offensive because Lenny accepted a Fate Point, and then the fiction is shaped around that. As you point out, the scene hasn't yet gotten to a point where it's clear what's going to happen. The game's incentive structures make it difficult-to-unwise for a player to refuse Compels, which don't need to derive from previous events.



pemerton said:


> *(3)* I'm not sure what you mean when yuou say that your character _ended up behaving in arguably suboptimal ways. _Are you talking about _suboptimal within the fiction _ ie the character sabotaged his/her own goals? This is what Landon does if Landon's player takes the Fate point; the Fate point economy is intended to make this a richer and more intense aspect of game play. Eg and as@Manbearcat has posted, it makes it _costly_ (ie paying a Fate point) for rational will to triumph over irrational or self-defeating habit or inclination or personality trait. This is a real-world experience of what, in the fiction, is the making of an effort by the character.
> 
> If you mean _suboptimal in the real world_, as in, _in making those decisions you undermined you own goals as a RPGer_, then that seems curious and I don't quite follow.




Specifically, the character refused to kill sleeping enemies, and refused to allow other party members to do so, in an adventure that's kinda written for PCs to be murderhobos, then started negotiating with opponents so she didn't have to kill them. (I'm pretty sure the player whose wizard cast the sleep spell thought it was suboptimal, and I wouldn't argue.) There are things in her backstory that arguably explain it, but that's ... emphatically not my usual play style, and it wasn't how I would have expected to play the character. And this is in D&D 5E, which offers no mechanical rewards for playing this way.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> Effects that come from the in-fiction opposition--things like being charmed or paralyzed or petrified or dominated or frightened (I know that's a negative condition in 3.x and 5E, don't know about 4E) or whatever, coming from what my character in the fiction is encountering in the fiction, such as a harpy or a gorgon or an illithid or a dragon--do not bother me at all. They are happening to my in-fiction character in the fiction, because of other things in the fiction that are behaving according to their natures as established in the fiction.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Effects that come from around the table--whether they come from the GM or another player--things like Compels in Fate, or the strings or whatever in Monsterhearts, or IIRC the various ways Stress is applied to characters by the GM in Blades in the Dark--bother the heck out of me, because though they represent things in the fiction (I'm clear on that, really) they aren't emerging naturally from the events in-fiction; they're emerging because someone else around the table has decided to use them to force my character's story to change.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Whatever effect is being placed onto my character by GM as GM (not as opposition) or fellow player (not as character) by metagame mechanics does not feel to me as though it is emerging naturally from the events preceding it; it feels as though a gun is appearing onstage during the third act.



But the reason I include a Gorechainn devil in an encounter is because I want to use it to force the PCs' stories to change - eg from attacking their enemies to attacking their friends. If I don't want that I don't use the creaturre, or I rewrite it.

And in the compel case, if it's what Fate Core calls a _decision _compel (pp 73, 211) then the GM is playing that non-rational or habitual or compulsive aspect of the PCs' personality, making it active in the players' decision-making process and thus giving life to it at the table. As I've said I don't play Fate, but when GMing D&D 4e or Prince Valiant I will play the devil on the shoulder, and offer players bonus resolution dice for commitment/morale if they take particular actions.

What is key to making that work is that the players are confident that _whatever choice they make_ - eg to take the compel or to decline it - the game will go on. For that reason I find your discussion of taking compels and accruing Fate points, which is expressed in the language of a serious boardgamer or wargamer, a bit curious. I fully agree that the Fate point economy won't work in a game that plays like a classic D&D module (eg White Plume Mountain) but I don't think that's how Fate was designed to be played.

An event compelt (pp 72, 211) is similar - the GM is trading on PC backstory/reputation to introduce complication into the unfolding narrative. The player can pay to buy off the complication, or can take a point and suck it up. The complication arises from the fiction - the PC's own past - and the GM is doing what s/he normally does in a trad(ish) RPG, which is drawing on all that established backstory to frame things.

I think there would be an interesting question in a Fate game about how to play out events-based compels, but to me it doesn't seem that hard to do it at the level of the fiction. Eg looking at two examples on p 72:

Cynere has *Infamous Girl with Sword* . . . so it makes sense that, unfortunately, an admirer would recognise her in the stands and make a huge fuss, turning all eyes in the arena her way​
As the GM starts narrating this, the player spends a Fate point and says "I pull my hood up over my face before the admirer can get a really good look" and the tne GM - understanding the mechanical significance of what has happened - narrates "The admirer sits down, not sure that it was Cyrnere after all.:

Landon has *I Owe Old Finn Everything* . . . so it makes sense that, unfortunately, Old Finn was captured and taken far into the mountans . . .​
As the GM starts  narrating the NPCs telling Landon how Old FInn was captured, Landon's player hands the GM a Fate point while saying, in character, "Are you sure you didn't make a mistake? Finn has to be OK!" And then the GM, again understanding the significance of the Fate point, narrates something like "At that moment Old Finn walks towards you. It looks like he was out picking mushrooms in the forest. 'Nah, that weren't me what was captured. You musta got half-a-look at some other white-haired fella!'

Obviously what I'm suggesting here wouldn't be the only way to handle the refusal of event compels, but it seems fairly straightforward as one way to do it.

And if these aspects of the character are experienced as rabbits from hats, or third-act-only guns, or whatever - then that suggests to me a bigger issue, that the players haven't chosen aspects that they want to play, or that the GM is not incorporating the chosen aspects into play. A similar thing can happen with Beliefs and Instincts in Burning Wheel - the rule books and commentary texts give advice on how to fix this. I assume that similar play advice exists for Fate.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> So, what happened in the fiction was that the character read the feather's aura and discovered it was cursed. What happened at/around the table was that the player rolled dice and didn't get a result that gave him (the player) authority to declare what the feather was, so the feather's properties were determined ... I'm guessing by table concensus?



Not table consensus. I think that makes for weak play.

I prefer an approach where it is the GM's job to establish the consequenes of failure. That way players don't have to manage deciding what bad things happen to their PCs: someone else has that job.

The Burning Wheel rulebooks gives very clear guidance around this, as _powerful consequences on failure_ are one of the main thinga that drive BW play.

Also your description of the check framing is not quite right either. The player declares that he is reading the Aura to identify it's angelic, Balrog-fighting properties. The action is declared before the dice are rolled. That way we know what is happening in the ficiton, and what character abilities are relevant (eg given that he took an augment from Ancient History, he must have established something about the history of angels in the Bright Desert to get that in).

If the player succeeds, his action succeeds: the feather has Balrog-fighting properties. (I believe, from memory, that the player was happy for me to fill in the details based on my greater familiarity with the system and hence the ways one might express Balrog-fighting properties of an angel feather. That said, it seems like that I confirmed that he was happy with Resistance to FIre as such a thing.)



prabe said:


> So the test to read the aura wasn't about properties the feather had, as established previously in-fiction (whether in play or in notes) but instead about who was going to decide what its properties were?
> 
> Is that a more accurate description?



The negative part is accurate. The positive part not quite. The test determines whether the players _intent and task_ come true (ie _I read the angel feather's aura to learn how it will be useful in confronting a balrog_) or not. The check failed, so the intent and task didn't come true - the task succeeded (the character read the feather's aura) - but the intent did not - as well of learning how it will be useful in confronting a balrog, the character also learned that it is cursed.

Two things to note:

*(1)* This system doesn't support making Perception or Aura-readoing or Knowledge checks _just to provoke more exposition from the GM_. The player has to say what it is that the character is looking for or hoping to discover. Ie it needs _intent_ as well as _task_.

*(2) *Had the check succeeded, no curse would have been detected. That doesn't in itself establish that the feather is not cursed, although - given the degree of success would be such-and-such - it does establish that the feather has no curse detectable by such-and-such a degree of successful aura reading.

The practical significance of this second thing is that, in a system played this way (which is pretty much how I like to play RPGs, though individual systems all have their own distinguishing quirks; RPGs that can't be played like this aren't ones I play) the GM has to balance _honouring success _and _introducing adversity, particularly on failed checks_. One example: the PCs successfullly drugged a rival so she would fall asleep and not be able to follow them to a wizard's tower. Then the PCs chose to go to the tower not through the streets (where they knew the way) but via the catacombs (so as to sneak in from below). I called for a Catacombs-wise check. This failed. Hence I narrated that the PCs got lost and hence lost time. Their rival awoke, and the race was on: it turned into Speed vs Speed (the PCs lost and so the rival got to the tower first). In the abstract I can't say what sort of failure, in the context of a successful reading of the feather's aura, might have licenced revealing it to be cursed - off the top of my head a failed Ancient History check, perhaps, if it pertained to the Bright Desert and its artefacts.

I think Vincent Baker in Apocalypse World is pretty good on this sort of stuff, although he encourages pushing the players maybe just a bit harder than I default to.



prabe said:


> if something exists in the fiction, and it wasn't put there around the table, that's something you'd describe as RPG-as-puzzle? That seems to imply that if I as a GM decide anything about a scene and don't tell the players about it, it's instantly RPG-as-puzzle



That would depend on what the point of the GM's decision is.

But if the players are expected to work it out in order to progress things, then yes - I would call that RPG-as-puzzle.

The OP seemss a good example: it seems that the players are expected to work out that the Burgomaster will go ape at them if they try and intimidate him, and to factor that into their attempt to progress matters.

Apocalpse World is, again, probably the best RPGing text I know of that explains how to use "off screen thinking" without making things into RPG-as-puzzle. The BW rulebook is not as good on it, but some of the subsequent commentary (eg in the Adventure Burner and Codex) is good. For instance, the GM might decide that some feature of the NPCs in the scene is a result of XYZ, which is something offscreen. Later on  - ie in some subeqent moment of framing or resolution - that can be used as a reveal.

But there was no moment of play prior to the revel where the players were expected to work out the XYZ thing. Of course they may have done so even though they didn't have to - in which case in this sort of RPGing the GM would follow their lead.

Or the players may have conjectured that the connection is not XYZ at all but ABC, in which case - if they succeed on appropirate checks - the GM will go along with it (honouring success) but if they fail then the GM has the chance to reveal that they were wrong all along, and it was really XYZ!

This is the sort of dynamic of play I have in mind when I'm talking about a relatively high degree of player agency over the shared fiction.


----------



## pemerton

FrozenNorth said:


> From memory, Compelling a player who has no Fate points is good GMing, not bad.  Following the Compel, the player receives the Fate point and is therefore able to continue to participate in the Fate economy: failing to fo so simply shuts the Player out.



I can see that. But equally shouldn't the point-less player be looking for his/her own Compels?


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> But the reason I include a Gorechainn devil in an encounter is because I want to use it to force the PCs' stories to change - eg from attacking their enemies to attacking their friends. If I don't want that I don't use the creaturre, or I rewrite it.




Believe it or not, we're not in disagreement about using the Gorechain Devil, exactly as you say. As the DM, your job is to introduce things into the fiction that work against the PCs. Compelling a PC feels an awful lot to me like playing that player's character, which is not my preferred playstyle and in fact feels like a violation of my expectations of play--which is probably why even reading the Fate Core book has a tendency to ruin my mood. I'm a very weird person.



pemerton said:


> And in the compel case, if it's what Fate Core calls a _decision _compel (pp 73, 211) then the GM is playing that non-rational or habitual or compulsive aspect of the PCs' personality, making it active in the players' decision-making process and thus giving life to it at the table. As I've said I don't play Fate, but when GMing D&D 4e or Prince Valiant I will play the devil on the shoulder, and offer players bonus resolution dice for commitment/morale if they take particular actions.




What it basically comes down to, I think, is that having my character's interior life directly manipulated--or portrayed--by the GM as the GM feels different to me than having my character manipulated by something in the fiction--by the GM as, say, the Gorechain Devil. I recognize that this is not an extremely rational position, but here I stand.



pemerton said:


> What is key to making that work is that the players are confident that _whatever choice they make_ - eg to take the compel or to decline it - the game will go on. For that reason I find your discussion of taking compels and accruing Fate points, which is expressed in the language of a serious boardgamer or wargamer, a bit curious. I fully agree that the Fate point economy won't work in a game that plays like a classic D&D module (eg White Plume Mountain) but I don't think that's how Fate was designed to be played.




As a GM, I want players to feel that empowered to decide, too. I don't think metagame mechanics help with that--I kinda think they get in the way.

I agree that Fate probably wasn't intended to be played like White Plume Mountain.



pemerton said:


> An event compelt (pp 72, 211) is similar - the GM is trading on PC backstory/reputation to introduce complication into the unfolding narrative. The player can pay to buy off the complication, or can take a point and suck it up. The complication arises from the fiction - the PC's own past - and the GM is doing what s/he normally does in a trad(ish) RPG, which is drawing on all that established backstory to frame things.
> 
> {snipping what's actually a pretty interesting approach to Fate Point that I have no further comment on}
> 
> And if these aspects of the character are experienced as rabbits from hats, or third-act-only guns, or whatever - then that suggests to me a bigger issue, that the players haven't chosen aspects that they want to play, or that the GM is not incorporating the chosen aspects into play. A similar thing can happen with Beliefs and Instincts in Burning Wheel - the rule books and commentary texts give advice on how to fix this. I assume that similar play advice exists for Fate.




In play, and as I read the book/s, they do have a tendency to come from left field. Most of the examples from the Fate Core Book, I'd feel at least somewhat wrong-footed as a player if play followed those sequences of events.

If the reason for those mechanics is to make good stories by tying PCs' backstories and other past events into the present fiction, and I do both of those things in 5E D&D while ignoring the weaksauce Fate-Lite that is Inspiration, then I think it can be rationally said that I don't need those mechanics.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I can see that. But equally shouldn't the point-less player be looking for his/her own Compels?




As I remember it, that's the expectation.


----------



## prabe

@pemerton I won't quote your long post to thank you for further explaining that sequence in Burning Wheel, but thank you for doing so. I believe I understand what happened there, and more of what you mean by RPG-as-Puzzle.


----------



## Manbearcat

Lanefan said:


> Often, however, that way the players end up more informed than the PCs.
> 
> Both the players at the table and the PCs in the fiction more or less know what sort of defensive ability a knight in plate mail and shield is going to have, as they can simply compare it with how those same defenses function on in-party PCs either past or present: "Hell, this guy's going to be as hard to hurt as Gretta used to be when she ran with us".  Here the description, player knowledge, and character knowledge are quite reasonably going to agree; with the only unknown variables being any enchantments on the knight's armour bits, or on the knight himself.
> 
> When I describe a Troll's rubbery hide, though, or the thick tough-looking scales of a Dragon, I neither want nor expect the players to immediately leap to a hard numerical AC value, for a few reasons: one, the PCs do
> n't think in numbers; two, the PCs probably haven't met enough of these creatures to be able to generalize; and three, thinking in numbers really breaks the 'fourth wall'.
> 
> Sure they might figure the actual AC value out after a few rounds of combat - as a player I find myself doing this far too often, and get mad at myself every time for doing it.




I'm fairly certain that you and I have had this conversation before and, if so, I wasn't convincing then (so why am I trying now!?).

When you say the above, I immediately think "this person has little to no experience as a martial actor in physical sports or combat." 

I can't recall, but i think you...may be...Canadian (?) so you have some experience with hockey?

Here is the thing.  I'm 42.  I have been a grappler since I was 12 (so 30 years) from wrestling to Brazilian Jiu-jitsu.  I have been in a ridiculous number of physical, violent confrontations in my life. 

What happens at the subconscious level of a very experienced, very trained physical combatant/athlete is ALL numbers.  All of it.  Spatial Geometry, trajectories, relative velocities, angles of intercept, potential force and how my body should move to diffuse some of it, arcs, etc.  Elite athletes have complex models of moving objects in space (including themselves; proprioception) and perform complex computations (subconsciously) in milliseconds that have amazing predictive capacity relative to a layperson.

An expert Warrior who has been exchanging blows in sparring, against target dummies with armor, real creatures in the wild with natural armor.  They would have an intrinsic understanding (with just a glimpse) of the density and resilience to blows of a dragon's scale that would be well beyond the pale of your average town guard, and profoundly beyond that of a villager.  They would process its agility, speed, and its ability (or not) to produce angles extremely quickly and with amazing accuracy.

If you merely inform with the sort of abstract, flowery prose that any noncombatant could grok to the same level ("The dragon's scales shimmer like steel as your torchlight cascades across it.  Its mighty lungs expand and contract as it sleeps, the sound of its overlapping armored plates grating subtly against each other, creating an eerie sound.  Not a single scale that you can see bears a scar of battle...though surely this Ancient Wyrm has been tested by other dragons and adventurers alike.") and model just as well ("These scales are really hard!") an elite combatant...

...well, if I'm sitting at that table, I don't feel remotely sufficiently informed with respect to the resolution of the mental model that I, while attempting to inhabit my elite Fighter, should have.  I would feel completely disconnected.


----------



## pemerton

FrogReaver said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that post I also noted that the same thing can routinely happen in D&D play - first the reaction or CHA check is rolled, and then the appropriate fiction is established. And when it comes to D&D combat, with hp ablation as the principal mechanic, the same time sequnce is practically mandatory. We don't know what has happened in the fiction until the resolution is well and truly done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are going to have to be more specific here.  An example would help tremendously.
Click to expand...


I think the combat point is pretty well-known, so I'll given a CHA/reaction example instead.

In B/X D&D and AD&D there is a reaction chart. And a PC's CHA score modifies rolls on that chart. And the rules tend to suggest that the GM should roll for a reaction when the PCs and NPCs/monsters meet.

This means that we can have the following sequence of events: the players delcare that their PCs enter a room; the GM describes the room as having some (let's say) gnolls in it; the GM rolls the reaction of the gnolls; the CHA modifier is applied; and now we know how the gnolls react to the PCs. But we don't yet know _why_. Nor do we know what happened that meant that the CHA of the PCs influenced the check - eg did the gnolls like the cut of their cloaks? 

Suppose, further, that a player of an elf, whose PC has high CHA and speaks gnoll, responds to the GM's narration of the room occupants by saying "I greet them with words of friendship in their own language." If the roll is poor, and hence - despite the CHA buff - the gnolls react in a surly or hostile fashion, why was that? Did the elf choose the wrong words? Speak with too elvish an accent? Do the gnolls just hate elves regardless of the sincerity of their greetings?

The fiction has to be filled in to explain the outcome that follow from resolution.

This is also why many encounters in OSR-ish D&D do _not_ require puzzle-solving. (Some do - eg from memory, hobgoblins attack elves on sight and so no reaction roll would be used. That's a puzzle for the players to solve.)


----------



## Hriston

prabe said:


> So, what happened in the fiction was that the character read the feather's aura and discovered it was cursed. What happened at/around the table was that the player rolled dice and didn't get a result that gave him (the player) authority to declare what the feather was, so the feather's properties were determined ... I'm guessing by table concensus? So the test to read the aura wasn't about properties the feather had, as established previously in-fiction (whether in play or in notes) but instead about who was going to decide what its properties were?



I've been lurking around on this thread for a while, but I thought it might be interesting to share an example of what I think might be the same sort of thing that happened recently in my current game of 5E. The party druid and one other PC had tracked a group of giant toads to where they were found asleep in their burrows late in the day. They were a couple hours walk from the rest of the party, and as there were too many toads for the two PCs to take on by themselves, the druid player declared an action to draw upon his previous observations of such toads (It had been established earlier in play that he had seen toads like this before.) to determine whether he would have enough time to go and get the rest of the party before the toads woke up. As DM, I hadn't determined anything about the sleeping habits of giant toads. I had an idea that because it was cold they would stay in their burrows until morning, but that's all it was -- just an idea. I called for an Intelligence (Nature) check with DC of 15 and told the player if the check succeeded, then his observations would confirm that the toads would stay in their burrows all night because of the cold weather, but if the check failed, then his observations would have told him that the toads come out to hunt soon after dark no matter how cold, which wouldn't leave enough time to go get his companions. The check failed with a result of 4, and the fiction unfolded according to the failure condition. The druid decided to go get his companions anyway and continued to track them the following day.


----------



## pemerton

@Hriston, nice example! It correlates pretty closely to examples in Burning Wheel how-to-play text as well as the actual play example I posted. And I would definitely consider it to be an example of player agency over the fiction. Even though the action failed, the player's framing of the action declaration played a big role in shaping that failure consequence.

And reflecting further on that: In these sorts of resolution contexts it's interesting to think about how explicit the GM needs to be about the stakes of failure. BW "officially" advocates full explicitness every time but Luke Crane (the designer) has said that in his own games he sometimes lets the failure consequences remain implicit in the situation.

I vary in my approach depending on what I feel is implicit, whether I think going explicit will increase tension or defuse it because of the "meta" intrusion, etc. Explicitness seems the surest way to guarantee player agency but that may not be the only desideratum in a given moment of play. On the other hand, if a failure consequence catches the player by surprise - ie they didn't see it as implicit in the fiction - then that can be an "oops" moment as a GM!


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Explicitness seems the surest way to guarantee player agency but that may not be the only desideratum in a given moment of play. On the other hand, if a failure consequence catches the player by surprise - ie they didn't see it as implicit in the fiction - then that can be an "oops" moment as a GM!



It can be - or it can be a version of a thing that happens rather often in the real world: unforeseen consequences.  No "GM oops" there.


----------



## Manbearcat

Lanefan said:


> It can be - or it can be a version of a thing that happens rather often in the real world: unforeseen consequences.  No "GM oops" there.




I absolutely 100 % agree.  But I'm not sure that I agree in the exact way that you intended it, so maybe you can confirm either way.

Unforeseen consequences as an outgrowth of action resolution is one of the beating hearts of keeping conflicts dynamic and interesting.  Here are all the moving parts:

1)  The consequences (presuming failure here) needs to address what the thematic stakes were about in the conflict.  Do you recall a long, long time ago when we (I'm almost certain you were involved in that conversation) my 4e play excerpt where the PCs were on horseback sprinting across the badlands trying to get to the forest to lose the army of bad guys on their tail (after they just stole an idol from their temple to bring back to the forest's Shaman to lift a curse)?  They failed a navigation check (it was Nature if I recall) and it was the 2nd failure of their Skill Challenge to "escape the pursuit by making it to the forest."  I navigated them getting lost and cresting a rise and narrowly stopping their horses before falling into a large gorge (with the forest in view on the other side).

Do you recall this?

"Unforeseen consequences" that set them back in their goal and created a new obstacle to overcome (as the scene's conflict mechanics said things were still in the balance).

2)  Unforeseen should mean *all *participants.  The more the GM contrives to preconceive a outcomes, the following happens:

a)  The GM's _precious, _prepared material will have a tendency to limit the dynamism of play.  There is situational context and ebb and flow and momentum and player intent that will emerge during play that will not be regarded in the GM's preconception of events before play ever began.

b)  The GM won't get to "play to find out."

c)   The game will be increasingly apt to be seduced toward GM Force in any singular moment of play and possibly have a tendency toward erecting a railroad for the long haul.


----------



## Fenris-77

Preconceived notions of how events will unfold is almost guaranteed to at best not quite match up with how play actually unfolds, and at worst look like the half-baked random nonsense. It's a spectrum, but anywhere along that spectrum it's somewhere between kinda meh and awful. I also think @Manbearcat has hit the nail on the head when he identifies it as a potential source of force.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> Unforeseen consequences as an outgrowth of action resolution is one of the beating hearts of keeping conflicts dynamic and interesting.




I agree. This is pretty much what I mean when I talk about a story emerging from play. I don't write what will happen, just what has happened (before the PCs arrive).



Manbearcat said:


> Unforeseen should mean *all *participants.  The more the GM contrives to preconceive a outcomes, the following happens:
> 
> a)  The GM's _precious, _prepared material will have a tendency to limit the dynamism of play.  There is situational context and ebb and flow and momentum and player intent that will emerge during play that will not be regarded in the GM's preconception of events before play ever began.
> 
> b)  The GM won't get to "play to find out."
> 
> c)   The game will be increasingly apt to be seduced toward GM Force in any singular moment of play and possibly have a tendency toward erecting a railroad for the long haul.




I agree with this, too, at least mostly. If what you prep is at least mostly what happened before the PCs get involved, and/or what will happen if they don't get involved, I don't think that's necessarily in the direction of building a railroad, or GM Force. I don't see that being inconsistent with "play to find out."

For example, I seem to have (against my better judgment) set up something like a mystery, and a pretty complex something like a mystery. There a lot of details to keep straight, but I have no idea how the PCs are going to solve or otherwise handle the situation.

If you have to have things react to the PCs, though, I think it's worth it to have at least considered how the PCs have acted in the past and consider the likely reactions to that. If the PCs do something else, oh well. I don't think this is a "preconceived outcome," but I may mean something narrower by that than you do.


----------



## pemerton

pemerton said:


> if a failure consequence catches the player by surprise - ie they didn't see it as implicit in the fiction - then that can be an "oops" moment as a GM!





Manbearcat said:


> Unforeseen consequences as an outgrowth of action resolution is one of the beating hearts of keeping conflicts dynamic and interesting.



I don't see any tension between these two remarks.

Here is John Harper on soft and hard moves in AW GMing:

I keep seeing some people struggle with this, so here's a handy guide to hard moves in Apocalypse World.​​*When you make a regular [=soft] MC move*, all three:​1. It follows logically from the fiction.​2. It gives the player an opportunity to react.​3. It sets you up for a future harder move.​​This means, say what happens but stop before the effect, then ask "What do you do?"​​. . .​​*When you make a hard MC move*, both:​1. It follows logically from the fiction.​2. It's irrevocable.​​This means, say what happens, including the effect, then ask "What do you do?"​​. . .​​See how that works? The regular move sets up the hard move. The hard move follows through on the threat established by the regular move. . . . [A] hard move doesn't automatically equate to severe consequences. The severity of the threat is a separate issue, depending wholly on the fiction as established. The hard move means the consequences, large or small, take full effect now.​​It's not about being mean, or punishing a missed roll, or inventing new trouble. It's about giving the fiction its full expression. Setup, follow-through. Action, consequences.​
He gives some examples of soft vs hard:

_ He swings the chainsaw right at your head. What do you do? _vs _The chainsaw bites into your face, spraying chunks of bloody flesh all over the room. 3-harm and make the harm move!_​​_You sneak into the garage but there's Plover right there, about to notice you any second now. What do you do?_ vs _Plover sees you and starts yelling like mad. Intruder!_​​_She stares at you coldly. 'Leave me alone,' she says. What do you do?_ vs _Don't come back here again.' She slams the door in your face and you hear the locks click home._​
He also gives an example of what _not _to do:

I've seen people struggle with hard moves in the moment. Like, when the dice miss, the MC stares at it like, "Crap! Now I have to invent something! Better make it dangerous and cool! Uh... some ninja... drop out of the ceiling... with poison knives! Grah!"​​Don't do that. Instead, when it's time for a hard move, look back at the setup move(s) you made. What was threatened? What was about to happen, before the PC took action? Follow through on that. Bring the effects on screen. Bring the consequences to fruition.​
Harper's idea of _bringing consequences to fruition_, of _giving the fiction its full expression_, is what I am getting at when I refer to consequences as being implicit in the fiction. If what the GM fails in that respect - if, to the players, it's like ninjas dropping unheralded from the ceiling - then you're probably into my "oops" territory.

Your famous gorge is (by the sound of it) not like that at all. The players are having their PCs attempt a cross-country escape relying on their riding skills and their familiarity with the countryside. A sudden obstacle like a gorge is absolutely implicit in that situation. (Contrast: finding your path blocked by a UFO that has just landed is not; wheres if the pursuit were in air/rafts in a Traveller game than the converse might well be true!)

My own take away from BW's equivocation between its "official" instructions and its designer's admitted practice is that when the rules were first written there was less familiarity with the sorts of techniques we're talking about here, and so it made sense to urge everyone to be express, in advance, about consequences; but that as the AW style (which I dont think AW invented, - you can see it eg in Prince Valiant 20+ years earlier and even hints of it in Classic Traveller 30+ years earlier - but which AW expresses probably more clearly than any other RPG rulebook) became more widely familiar, the need to advocate such strict scaffolding around play fell away.

I think we can easily relate this back to the OP. Among other things, it appears that there was some sort of mismatch between the players' and the GM's conceptions of what consequences were implilcit in the fiction. My view is that this is a largely inelminable risk of relying on secret GM notes rather than treating _what has been narrated_ as the core of the established fiction.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> If you have to have things react to the PCs, though, I think it's worth it to have at least considered how the PCs have acted in the past and consider the likely reactions to that. If the PCs do something else, oh well. I don't think this is a "preconceived outcome," but I may mean something narrower by that than you do.




Don't disagree that its good to have a considered opinion on your PCs and on the setting elements that you're interposing between the PCs and their goals (which hopefully is the premise of play).

The problem arises when the consideration becomes precious and when a GM eschews malleability for ossification because of it (which tends to manifest as Force, or bare minimum feel like Force, during play).


----------



## Manbearcat

pemerton said:


> I don't see any tension between these two remarks.
> 
> Here is John Harper on soft and hard moves in AW GMing:
> 
> I keep seeing some people struggle with this, so here's a handy guide to hard moves in Apocalypse World.
> 
> *When you make a regular [=soft] MC move*, all three:
> 1. It follows logically from the fiction.
> 2. It gives the player an opportunity to react.
> 3. It sets you up for a future harder move.
> 
> This means, say what happens but stop before the effect, then ask "What do you do?"
> 
> . . .
> 
> *When you make a hard MC move*, both:
> 1. It follows logically from the fiction.
> 2. It's irrevocable.
> 
> This means, say what happens, including the effect, then ask "What do you do?"
> 
> . . .
> 
> See how that works? The regular move sets up the hard move. The hard move follows through on the threat established by the regular move. . . . [A] hard move doesn't automatically equate to severe consequences. The severity of the threat is a separate issue, depending wholly on the fiction as established. The hard move means the consequences, large or small, take full effect now.
> 
> It's not about being mean, or punishing a missed roll, or inventing new trouble. It's about giving the fiction its full expression. Setup, follow-through. Action, consequences.
> 
> He gives some examples of soft vs hard:
> 
> _ He swings the chainsaw right at your head. What do you do? _vs _The chainsaw bites into your face, spraying chunks of bloody flesh all over the room. 3-harm and make the harm move!
> 
> You sneak into the garage but there's Plover right there, about to notice you any second now. What do you do?_ vs _Plover sees you and starts yelling like mad. Intruder!
> 
> She stares at you coldly. 'Leave me alone,' she says. What do you do?_ vs _Don't come back here again.' She slams the door in your face and you hear the locks click home._
> 
> He also gives an example of what _not _to do:
> 
> I've seen people struggle with hard moves in the moment. Like, when the dice miss, the MC stares at it like, "Crap! Now I have to invent something! Better make it dangerous and cool! Uh... some ninja... drop out of the ceiling... with poison knives! Grah!"
> 
> Don't do that. Instead, when it's time for a hard move, look back at the setup move(s) you made. What was threatened? What was about to happen, before the PC took action? Follow through on that. Bring the effects on screen. Bring the consequences to fruition.
> 
> Harper's idea of _bringing consequences to fruition_, of _giving the fiction its full expression_, is what I am getting at when I refer to consequences as being implicit in the fiction. If what the GM fails in that respect - if, to the players, it's like ninjas dropping unheralded from the ceiling - then you're probably into my "oops" territory.
> 
> Your famous gorge is (by the sound of it) not like that at all. The players are having their PCs attempt a cross-country escape relying on their riding skills and their familiarity with the countryside. A sudden obstacle like a gorge is absolutely implicit in that situation. (Contrast: finding your path blocked by a UFO that has just landed is not; wheres if the pursuit were in air/rafts in a Traveller game than the converse might well be true!)
> 
> My own take away from BW's equivocation between its "official" instructions and its designer's admitted practice is that when the rules were first written there was less familiarity with the sorts of techniques we're talking about here, and so it made sense to urge everyone to be express, in advance, about consequences; but that as the AW style (which I dont think AW invented, - you can see it eg in Prince Valiant 20+ years earlier and even hints of it in Classic Traveller 30+ years earlier - but which AW expresses probably more clearly than any other RPG rulebook) became more widely familiar, the need to advocate such strict scaffolding around play fell away.
> 
> I think we can easily relate this back to the OP. Among other things, it appears that there was some sort of mismatch between the players' and the GM's conceptions of what consequences were implilcit in the fiction. My view is that this is a largely inelminable risk of relying on secret GM notes rather than treating _what has been narrated_ as the core of the established fiction.




Don't have anything to add.  Agree on all points:

1)  There isn't any daylight between what we're saying (implicit meaning follow from the fiction which entails genre expectations + play principles and procedures + thematic expectations; in badlands chases use gorges not UFOs + Fail Forward with momentum + challenge them on the axis of the premise of the challenge).

2)  Harper's layout of the architecture of this (in AW) is spot on.

3)  Your last paragraph also spot on and its my same feeling about the relation to the OP.   That action declaration in the OP could absolutely be a thematically coherent, good faith move by the player.  As such, the only interesting conversation orbits around working from that premise (otherwise, again, just fix your out of play issues) and the premise is definitely hooked deeply into a mismatch of GM and player conception about what should be reasonable inputs to and outputs from play.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Manbearcat said:


> Don't disagree that its good to have a considered opinion on your PCs and on the setting elements that you're interposing between the PCs and their goals (which hopefully is the premise of play).
> 
> The problem arises when the consideration becomes precious and when a GM eschews malleability for ossification because of it (which tends to manifest as Force, or bare minimum feel like Force, during play).




This is something I still struggle with at times with 5E D&D. I tend to work pretty loosely in prep, and I try to craft situations that appeal to my players and their characters, and then let them engage with them how they want.

But....I also tend to ponder things in between sessions. I tend to mentally flesh out a villain, or some potential element....and then they become more than mere props for my players to interact with. 

And I think that can be problematic. Not that the NPC or location or whatever has more depth as a result...that’s likely a good thing. But that this element has now become more important to me as a DM than it may be to my players. 

This is why I advocated for “holding on loosely” as a GM earlier in the thread. It’s something I have to keep in mind and actively work at. I think the wannabe writer in me just tries to take over, and that’s not necessarily a good thing for an interactive game.

I used to be very bad at this. Especially with enemies of the PCs. I learned early on that recurring villains can be very engaging for players. And then I think that every single antagonist I’d introduce would somehow get away and show up later. I mean, this can be great sometimes....but all the time? Ugh.

I’ve gotten much better with it. I’ve changed up my approach to DMing a lot since 5E came along. I’ve also GMed several other games that work differently, and that’s only reinforced what I expected was a weak point for me, and shown me other ways to manage it. 

That idea that you had when you crafted the game....that can be a powerful draw, and can be tough to let go. But you have to be ready to do that if that’s the way it goes.


----------



## Manbearcat

Great post @hawkeyefan .

Humility, self-awareness, cognitive malleability (able to pivot at least), and the willingness to work on your game are assets that aren't remotely discussed enough when it comes to GMing.

If anyone ever wonders what vantage I'm coming from when I post on these forums its as someone who encourages GMs to remain disciplined and industrious around those four things.

Its not your game.  Never consider yourself a finished product.  Realize your responsibility when play doesn't turn out satisfyingly and always aspire to be better (that includes developing a diverse experience in running games).

EDIT - Basically the antithesis of the George Lakoff Strict Father model of GMing that I see so often; "Its your game and if you spare the rod you'll spoil the child and you'll never condition your players into 'playing appropriately'...oh and beware of games that are too player-facing because its nothing but rod-sparing and child-spoiling!"

There is a spectrum of diverse GMing ethoi, for sure, but it seems like the one that I see advocated for most vociferously is the model above.  I don't agree with that approach (to say the least) and I don't think its good for the hobby for it to be the standard-bearer.


----------



## Fenris-77

I only really bust out 'the rod' in cases of players who are disrespecting the shared fiction, specifically by being flip and casual and not taking anything seriously in a game where things are, sometimes, supposed to be serious. The kind of player who will bring a whole social encounter crashing down, and generally ruin role playing moments for the rest of the table because he's more concerned with amusing himself than in playing the game. When I say rod, I really mean I'll transition to hard moves faster and the hardness of the moves goes up. I don't need anyone to be super serious, and my games always contain a solid leavening of humor (I'm incapable of not adding humor), but you need to respect the other players. 

With those players I'll generally start with the odd comment at the table, and I'll generally be transparent about linking cause to effect with moves and consequences. One, this lets the other players know that the issue has been identified, and two, it allows the player in question to try to manage his own behavior. Peer pressure is a good first tool. I'll usually put off 'taking them aside for a chat' as I find people often get defensive in those situations. Sometimes it fixes itself.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Manbearcat said:


> EDIT - Basically the antithesis of the George Lakoff Strict Father model of GMing that I see so often; "Its your game and if you spare the rod you'll spoil the child and you'll never condition your players into 'playing appropriately'...oh and beware of games that are too player-facing because its nothing but rod-sparing and child-spoiling!"
> 
> There is a spectrum of diverse GMing ethoi, for sure, but it seems like the one that I see advocated for most vociferously is the model above.  I don't agree with that approach (to say the least) and I don't think its good for the hobby for it to be the standard-bearer.




Yeah, I agree. There was a lot of that early in the thread in response to the OP, and that’s probably what got me so involved in this discussion to begin with. “Punishing players” and correcting behavior, and so on. 

There is of course a social aspect to the game, and I think conversations about all that are key. Any problem that’s not really game related should be addressed with a conversation. 

Anything else that’s seen as problematic....well, I think you have to look at why it’s being considered problematic first, and then consider how to handle it.

You mentioned how the declaration of the insult in the OP may have been a valid action declaration...I absolutely agree that it could have been. It’s also possible that the player was simply bored and wanted to provoke a confrontation. Now, if that’s the case, I think it’s up to the GM and players to look at the reasons this happened. Could it be a problem player? Possibly. Could there be other reasons? Absolutely. 

A lot of times, it seems to me that when a player decides to do something other than what’s expected, it’s seen as problematic play. It’s too broadly applied.


----------



## Campbell

I really enjoy sandbox play sometimes. The Sine Nomine games that embrace that style of play (Stars Without number, Godbound, Wolves of God) are some of my favorite games. I am a player in a Freebooters on the Frontier game that will be moving over to a West Marches style game.

I think you can absolutely have games that are about playing to find out *what* happens with prep that constrains play. It just requires a phenomenal amount of discipline in both preparation and play. The second your prep becomes about sharing *your content* rather than creating an environment for the other players to play in I think you are stepping over what I consider to be a pretty important line. Embedding mysteries that players can look into if they want is fine. Creating a mystery that players are expected to solve is over the line for playing to find out *what* happens.  It may be a fine example of playing to find out *how* it happens or *if* it happens.

Generally speaking if you have a strong indication of what a player will do based on your prep I think you either need to work on your scenario designs or look into unspoken biases in play.  Many players will reflexively follow a GM's lead without even thinking about it. This is something I think we all need to work on. Especially in lengthy games it can be all to easy to fall into familiar patterns.


----------



## prabe

Campbell said:


> Generally speaking if you have a strong indication of what a player will do based on your prep I think you either need to work on your scenario designs or look into unspoken biases in play.  Many players will reflexively follow a GM's lead without even thinking about it. This is something I think we all need to work on. Especially in lengthy games it can be all to easy to fall into familiar patterns.




I don't entirely agree with this (though the rest of the post is spot-on, from what I can tell). I'm DMing one table with six players and one with five; there are three players in common. Two of them I've been gaming with for more than fifteen years, as both a player and as a DM, and one of them is my wife (whom I've been gaming with for even longer, and know even better). I can usually guess how both tables will react to situations, but if/when I'm wrong then I'm wrong and things go a direction I didn't have prepped--no big deal.

I'm also not entirely clear on your distinction in re: mysteries. I kinda accidentally ended up DMing one, but it was because play evolved that way, so I had to work out what had really happened and why--but I did so after the PCs had already demonstrated they were going to look into it and try to solve it.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Campbell said:


> I really enjoy sandbox play sometimes. The Sine Nomine games that embrace that style of play (Stars Without number, Godbound, Wolves of God) are some of my favorite games. I am a player in a Freebooters on the Frontier game that will be moving over to a West Marches style game.
> 
> I think you can absolutely have games that are about playing to find out *what* happens with prep that constrains play. It just requires a phenomenal amount of discipline in both preparation and play. The second your prep becomes about sharing *your content* rather than creating an environment for the other players to play in I think you are stepping over what I consider to be a pretty important line. Embedding mysteries that players can look into if they want is fine. Creating a mystery that players are expected to solve is over the line for playing to find out *what* happens.  It may be a fine example of playing to find out *how* it happens or *if* it happens.
> 
> Generally speaking if you have a strong indication of what a player will do based on your prep I think you either need to work on your scenario designs or look into unspoken biases in play.  Many players will reflexively follow a GM's lead without even thinking about it. This is something I think we all need to work on. Especially in lengthy games it can be all to easy to fall into familiar patterns.




So I'm currently running a Blades in the Dark campaign using the Flame Without Shadow playtest material. The PCs are playing an Inspector and Bluecoats who have a mandate to deal with a drug epidemic that's come up in Nightmarket. 

I know who the "bad guys" are because it was a PC crew from a prior campaign. But exactly who is behind them, and which factions have a vested interest in how things go....whether they want the Mandate to succeed or fail.....all of that is kind of unknown to me. I'm introducing elements and factions and things are happening, and I'm not quite sure why. 

But as it happens, as elements are introduced and then expanded upon, I'm finding that they reconcile themselves. The lack of predetermined motives and actions and agendas by many of the NPCs (not all, some have very clear motives and goals) means that nothing is being contradicted. Everything is established in play, with only the basic framework of setting and factions before hand. 

It's really interesting to watch.


----------



## darkbard

hawkeyefan said:


> I know who the "bad guys" are because it was a PC crew from a prior campaign. But exactly who is behind them, and which factions have a vested interest in how things go....whether they want the Mandate to succeed or fail.....all of that is kind of unknown to me. I'm introducing elements and factions and things are happening, and I'm not quite sure why.
> 
> But as it happens, as elements are introduced and then expanded upon, I'm finding that they reconcile themselves. The lack of predetermined motives and actions and agendas by many of the NPCs (not all, some have very clear motives and goals) means that nothing is being contradicted. Everything is established in play, with only the basic framework of setting and factions before hand.




This may be more work than you're willing to do, but I think it might be useful if you can flesh this out with a specific example or two: what was happening in a scene when you introduced a new element, how that new element became integrated, consistent, and reconciled with other elements already established, and so on.

On another note, I've basically been away from EN World for the past eight or nine months, checking in only once every few weeks or so, but catching up in this thread has been one of the better parts of the past week. Thanks, participants, for a lively and enlivening discussion and analysis!


----------



## hawkeyefan

darkbard said:


> This may be more work than you're willing to do, but I think it might be useful if you can flesh this out with a specific example or two: what was happening in a scene when you introduced a new element, how that new element became integrated, consistent, and reconciled with other elements already established, and so on.
> 
> On another note, I've basically been away from EN World for the past eight or nine months, checking in only once every few weeks or so, but catching up in this thread has been one of the better parts of the past week. Thanks, participants, for a lively and enlivening discussion and analysis!




Welcome back.

The example that jumps out at me happened pretty early in the campaign. So as I mentioned, the PCs are police in a special unit that’s been assembled to deal with a specific gang, the Steel Syndicate, who has been flooding the streets of Nightmarket with a supernatural drug called Third Eye. The Steel Syndicate is actually the gang the players created and played in our first campaign. 

Early on, after their third Operation (equivalent of a Score in Blades proper), I rolled for entanglements during the Fowntime phase. The result I got was that someone makes a move against a friend or ally. At this point, they hadn’t made enough progress to even be on the Syndicate’s radar, so it didn’t make sense to have someone from the Syndicate make a move on them. So instead I had an anonymous guy make a threat on one of the PC’s family. He was outside the PC’s house and said “Must be nice to have a family. A man should be careful to make sure nothing happens to them.” (Straight out of “Untouchables” if you’re familiar). Then he ran off. 

So I had no idea who this guy was working for, other than it wasn’t the Syndicate. All I knew was that some other faction was already taking an interest in the unit. 

So the player decided he’d have his PC spend some downtime devoted to finding this guy. The PC started questioning people and asking around and roughing people up to get them to talk. After a few downtime phases, he filled the clock that indicated he had located the guy.

In the interim, the PCs had a separate encounter that put them at odds with a gang called the Dimmer Sisters. This was an idea for an operation that the players came up with. The Dimmer Sisters are like a coven of witches that are involved in all kinds of magical crime and the like. So when it came time for the PCs to confront the mysterious guy, it made sense to have him working for the Dimmer Sisters. They nabbed him and got him to talk. So now they realize that they didn’t just have a run in with the Dimmer Sisters....the witches are actively involved in the situation. Which, given that the drug Third Eye is supernatural, dovetails very nicely.

When I introduced the guy threatening the PC’s family, I didn’t even know the Dimmer Sisters would ever come into play. 

If I had had to decide that ahead of time, I would have likely picked another gang or faction, which would potentially steer things a different way. Instead, it kind of slid into something else that came along....something else the players brought to the game...and fit very nicely.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Edited double post


----------



## Campbell

@prabe

I was mostly speaking to the additional discipline required to run preparation heavy games if your goal is to play to find out what happens.

There are all sorts of constraints you need to impose on yourself:

You have to be willing to let a vast amount of material go unused.
You need to avoid investment in your prep.
Prep should be done in a purposeful way. You are a facilitator - not the main attraction.
Most importantly you have to fight against a whole host of unconscious biases that pervade the minds of players and GMs, particularly ones that have been part of the hobby for a long time.
When I am running a game my first priority is to be what John Harper calls a curious explorer of the fiction. A large part of that involves fighting against making assumptions or setting unconscious expectations of what actions the other players will declare for their characters. Another part involves using techniques that will help players focus on the situation and away from trying to find out what I want them to do. These techniques vary based on the type of game.

If I start considering how the environment will respond based on what players may or may not do then I am opening up avenues for cognitive biases to step in. It also means (particularly in social scenes) that I am not really being a curious explorer of the fiction and really considering what a given NPC would do 
*right here right now*.

Right now I am preparing for the first session / session 0 of a Lancer game. It is easy for me to get carried away creating rich inner lives for NPCs, elaborate factions, and world building. That would not serve my game well. I need to keep it purposeful and focused. Prep serves play. Not the other way around.


----------



## Campbell

My previous post is focused on if you place a very high premium on playing to find out what happens. It is the prevailing focus of my play, but it does not have to be yours. It is not intrinsically good.

It comes with many risks. The feral story is more apt to risk our creative connections to our characters. The discipline required might require effort you are not willing to exert. Setting exploration for its own sake might be important to you. Some players prefer a certain level of GM guidance.

The things I look for in roleplaying games are somewhat specific. While I am not entirely crazy with his analysis in terms of Robin Laws' player types I tend to score highly as a Method Actor and Tactician. I come from a theater background and used to be an avid LARP participant. That sense of being in the situation is critical to me on both sides of the screen. I also have very little interest in setting exploration for its own sake.

Here is my Gamer Motivation Profile:









						My Gamer Motivation Profile: Action-Oriented, Proficient, Relaxed, Social, Deeply Immersed, and Creative
					

Want to know your profile? Take the survey!




					apps.quanticfoundry.com
				




I am guessing that I very unusual in having very little regard for the Discovery component and almost no regard for the Completion or Power Components. I would also guess that having such a high regard for the Mastery Components (Challenge and Strategy) is somewhat outside of mainstream play culture.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> I absolutely 100 % agree.  But I'm not sure that I agree in the exact way that you intended it, so maybe you can confirm either way.
> 
> Unforeseen consequences as an outgrowth of action resolution is one of the beating hearts of keeping conflicts dynamic and interesting.  Here are all the moving parts:
> 
> 1)  The consequences (presuming failure here) needs to address what the thematic stakes were about in the conflict.  Do you recall a long, long time ago when we (I'm almost certain you were involved in that conversation) my 4e play excerpt where the PCs were on horseback sprinting across the badlands trying to get to the forest to lose the army of bad guys on their tail (after they just stole an idol from their temple to bring back to the forest's Shaman to lift a curse)?  They failed a navigation check (it was Nature if I recall) and it was the 2nd failure of their Skill Challenge to "escape the pursuit by making it to the forest."  I navigated them getting lost and cresting a rise and narrowly stopping their horses before falling into a large gorge (with the forest in view on the other side).



Offhand I don't remember this example, sorry.  But I get the gist.



> "Unforeseen consequences" that set them back in their goal and created a new obstacle to overcome (as the scene's conflict mechanics said things were still in the balance).



From the players' point of view the consequence of the gorge is unforeseen.  It matters not whether the GM had the gorge on her map all along or made it up on the fly (in badlands a sudden gorge makes perfect sense either way).



> 2)  Unforeseen should mean *all *participants.



No, just the players. Ideally the GM has already thought of a bunch of possible outcomes and thus won't be caught off guard.



> The more the GM contrives to preconceive a outcomes, the following happens:
> 
> a)  The GM's _precious, _prepared material will have a tendency to limit the dynamism of play.  There is situational context and ebb and flow and momentum and player intent that will emerge during play that will not be regarded in the GM's preconception of events before play ever began.
> 
> b)  The GM won't get to "play to find out."
> 
> c)   The game will be increasingly apt to be seduced toward GM Force in any singular moment of play and possibly have a tendency toward erecting a railroad for the long haul.



First off, there's a difference between a GM having a preconceived outcome and directing play towards it and a GM having a bunch of possible outcomes in mind (or in notes) and putting these in play as the situation suggests.  That said:

a) sounds like something @pemerton, who IMO has a rather strong and consistent anti-GM bias, would post.

b) if the GM's only just now finding out what's going on, she's floundering.  The GM should IMO always be a few steps ahead.  In your chase example this would include having a half-decent map of the area done ahead of time so I could see what was where, and track the PCs' progress. (and the PCs would probably have learned some of what was where on their initial trip from the forest to the temple, if one was made, though when hotly pursued later they could still get lost as hell and find a gorge they didn't expect)

That's what prepping more than you need is for: reducing the chance of having to hit player-thrown curveballs and-or having to wing it, which IME often (as in, always!) leads to consistency issues when I don't remember some relevant detail I said an hour ago, can't write and talk at the same time, and don't want to grind everything to a halt every two minutes while I make notes on what I just said.  Not saying I can't wing it, but I prefer not to* if possible.

c) I don't hold the same strident objection to GM Force that some here seem to.  It has its place, particularly on nights (and they do happen) when the players are in story-consumption mode.  Even a full-on railroad has its place now and then, though I prefer to keep these occasions to a minimum.

* - the exception is something like a dream or alternate-reality scenario or adventure where consistency doesn't necessarily matter anyway.  I'm happy to wing those.


----------



## Lanefan

Sorry for not getting to this one sooner...


Manbearcat said:


> When you say the above, I immediately think "this person has little to no experience as a martial actor in physical sports or combat."
> 
> I can't recall, but i think you...may be...Canadian (?) so you have some experience with hockey?



Watching it, yes.  Closest I got to playing it was several seasons of (very!) amateur broomball - similar-ish game played on the same rink but without skates.



> Here is the thing.  I'm 42.  I have been a grappler since I was 12 (so 30 years) from wrestling to Brazilian Jiu-jitsu.  I have been in a ridiculous number of physical, violent confrontations in my life.
> 
> What happens at the subconscious level of a very experienced, very trained physical combatant/athlete is ALL numbers.  All of it.  Spatial Geometry, trajectories, relative velocities, angles of intercept, potential force and how my body should move to diffuse some of it, arcs, etc.  Elite athletes have complex models of moving objects in space (including themselves; proprioception) and perform complex computations (subconsciously) in milliseconds that have amazing predictive capacity relative to a layperson.
> 
> An expert Warrior who has been exchanging blows in sparring, against target dummies with armor, real creatures in the wild with natural armor.  They would have an intrinsic understanding (with just a glimpse) of the density and resilience to blows of a dragon's scale that would be well beyond the pale of your average town guard, and profoundly beyond that of a villager.  They would process its agility, speed, and its ability (or not) to produce angles extremely quickly and with amazing accuracy.



Which is reflected - perhaps not well, but hey - in your character's increasing skill with weapons, ability to hit, and so forth.



> If you merely inform with the sort of abstract, flowery prose that any noncombatant could grok to the same level ("The dragon's scales shimmer like steel as your torchlight cascades across it.  Its mighty lungs expand and contract as it sleeps, the sound of its overlapping armored plates grating subtly against each other, creating an eerie sound.  Not a single scale that you can see bears a scar of battle...though surely this Ancient Wyrm has been tested by other dragons and adventurers alike.") and model just as well ("These scales are really hard!") an elite combatant...
> 
> ...well, if I'm sitting at that table, I don't feel remotely sufficiently informed with respect to the resolution of the mental model that I, while attempting to inhabit my elite Fighter, should have.  I would feel completely disconnected.



Two issues here - maybe more, but two leap to mind:

First, if I tell you up front what its AC is then I've also told the whole table, including all the less-able combatants who otherwise wouldn't have a clue.  I've given them information they shouldn't know.

Second, in the case of a more common creature - say Orcs in plate mail - if I tell you this one's AC is 2 (or 18 if you insist on counting up  ) then tell you the next one's AC is 0 (or 20) yet the next one has no more dexterity going for it than the last one, that's an instant red flag to you-all-as-players that this one's got magic defenses on it; again info that neither characters nor players wouldn't and shouldn't know yet.

As for the mental modelling, that's subsumed in your Fighter's ability to swing for the cracks between the scales, wait for openings, and so forth which is taken into account mechanically by your increasing (to use the 3e term) BAB as you gain levels and experience.  Increasing hit points kind of - badly - sorts out your increasing ability to dodge what would otherwise be fatal or near-fatal blows.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> A lot of times, it seems to me that when a player decides to do something other than what’s expected, it’s seen as problematic play. It’s too broadly applied.



I 100% agree with this.

I'll even go a step further: some people (both as players and GMs) seem to have a definition of 'problematic play' that doesn't leave much non-problematic room between the ditches.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> a) sounds like something @pemerton, who IMO has a rather strong and consistent anti-GM bias, would post.



Over the past 30 years I have GMed 100s and 100s of hours of play (a rough estimate makes me think over 3000) and have played maybe a few hundered hours at most. That's a 10:1 ratio of time spent GMing.

So unless you think I'm self-hating, I don't know why you would say I have an "anti-GM bias". There are certain approaches to GMing that I don't like, but I manage to reconcile that dislike with my own GMing by not using them!



Lanefan said:


> b) if the GM's only just now finding out what's going on, she's floundering.



I frequently find out what is going on "only just now" but only occasinally flounder as a GM. So this claim is not true.



hawkeyefan said:


> I know who the "bad guys" are because it was a PC crew from a prior campaign. But exactly who is behind them, and which factions have a vested interest in how things go....whether they want the Mandate to succeed or fail.....all of that is kind of unknown to me. I'm introducing elements and factions and things are happening, and I'm not quite sure why.
> 
> But as it happens, as elements are introduced and then expanded upon, I'm finding that they reconcile themselves. The lack of predetermined motives and actions and agendas by many of the NPCs (not all, some have very clear motives and goals) means that nothing is being contradicted. Everything is established in play, with only the basic framework of setting and factions before hand.
> 
> It's really interesting to watch.





darkbard said:


> I think it might be useful if you can flesh this out with a specific example or two: what was happening in a scene when you introduced a new element, how that new element became integrated, consistent, and reconciled with other elements already established, and so on.



Not hawkeyefan, but here are a couple of examples of my own, from Classic Traveller play:



pemerton said:


> With the background in place [ie randmoly generated PCs and starting world], I then rolled for a patron on the random patron table, and got a "marine officer" result. Given the PC backgrounds, it made sense that Lieutenant Li - as I dubbed her - would be making contact with Roland [who had served in the Imperial Navy]. The first thing I told the players was that a Scout ship had landed at the starport, although there it has no Scout base and there is no apparent need to do any survey work in the system; and that the principal passenger seemed to be an officer of the Imperial Marines. I then explained that, while doing the rounds at the hospital, Roland received a message from his old comrade Li inviting him to meet her at the casino, and to feel free to bring along any friends he might have in the place.
> 
> In preparation for the session I had generated a few worlds - one with a pop in the millions and a corrosive atmosphere; a high-pop but very low-tech world with a tainited atmosphere (which I had decided meant disease, given that the world lacked the technological capacity to generate pollution); and a pop 1 (ie population in the 10s) world with no government or law level with a high tech level - clearly some sort of waystation with a research outpost attached.
> 
> Given that I had these worlds ready-to hand, and given that the players had a ship [ie the noble PC VIncenzo's starting yacht], I needed to come up with some situation from Lt Li that would put them into play: so when Roland and Vincenzo (just discharged from medical care) met up with her she told the following story - which Methwit [the diplomat/spy PC] couldn't help but overhear before joining them!
> 
> Lt Li wondered whether Vincenzo would be able to take 3 tons of cargo to Byron for her. (With his excellent education, Roland knew that Byron was a planet with a large (pop in the millions) city under a series of domes, but without the technical capabilities to maintain the domes into the long term.) When the PCs arrived on Byron contact would be made by those expecting the goods. And payment would be 100,000 for the master of the ship, plus 10,000 for each other crew member.
> 
> Some quick maths confirmed that 100,000 would more than cover the fuel costs of the trip, and so Vincenzo (taking advice from Roland - he knows nothing about running a ship) agreed to the request.
> 
> Methwit thought all this sounded a bit odd - why would a high-class (Soc A) marine lieutenant be smuggling goods into a dead-end world like Byron - and so asked Li back to his hotel room to talk further. With his Liaison-1 and Carousing-1 and a good reaction roll she agreed, and with his Interrogation-1 he was able to obtain some additional information (although he did have to share some details about his own background to persuade her to share).
> 
> The real situation, she explained, was that Byron was itself just a stop-over point. The real action was on another world - Enlil - which is technologically backwards and has a disease-ridden atmosphere to which there is no resistance or immunity other than in Enlil's native population. So the goods to be shipped from Ardour-3 were high-tech medical gear for extracting and concentrating pathogens from the atmosphere on Enlil, to be shipped back to support a secret bio-weapons program. The reason a new team was needed for this mission was because Vincenzo had won the yacht from the original team - who were being dealt with "appropriately" for their incompetence in disrupting the operation.
> 
> (I had been planning to leave the real backstory to the mission pretty loose, to be fleshed out as needed - including the possibility that Li was actually going to betray the PCs in some fashion - but the move from Methwit's player forced my hand, and I had to come up with some more plausible backstory to explain the otherwise absurd situation I'd come up with. And it had to relate to the worlds I'd come up with in my prep.)





pemerton said:


> Before the session I'd done a reasonable amount of prep.
> 
> First, I wrote up a list of established facts - that is, information that had emerged over the course of the first three sessions and so was settled truth for the campaign:
> 
> * Lt Li (the PCs' original patron, who got them involved in her bioweapons operation) had a team on Ardour-3 (the starting world for the campaign) who had flown hi-tech medical equipment to Byron (the world the PCs currently are on);
> 
> * Those NPCs lost their spaceship to the PC noble Vincenzo in a gambling game (hence Vincenzo started the game with a Type Y starship);
> 
> * Hence Li had to recruit the PCs - including one whom she knew from his time in the service, the naval enlistee Roland - to fly a further load of equipment to Byron;
> 
> * Li had recruited a bunch of NPCs (whom the PCs captured and interrogated in the previous session) at the naval base on Shelley, a world in the general vicinity of Byron;
> 
> * The PC Alissa had been in the naval hospital on Shelley (forcibly mustered out of the Marines due to failing her first term survival check by 1), but had then - about the same time that Li was travelling to Ardour-3 to meet the other PCs in the first session - found herself in a cold sleep berth in a warehouse in Byron, infected with the Enlil virus (before being found and cured by the other PCs in a previous session);
> 
> * Li was the one who had brought Alissa in a cold sleep berth from Shelley to Byron, and the other NPCs on Byron didn't know that Alissa was infected with the virus (this came out under interrogation of said NPCs);
> 
> * The operation on Byron involved experimenting on bodies (both live and dead) acquired by some NPC rogues (who were among the NPCs the PCs captured), using samples that had been brought from Enlil (the world where the virus is endemic) to Byron by another team headed by the retired merchant first officer Leila Lo (who, we had decided last session, had a backstory with Tony, a PC retired merchant third officer), and with hi-tech medical gear integrated into the cold sleep berths;
> 
> * Materials had also been taken by Leila's team from Byron to a Scout base on the world of Olyx;
> 
> * The Byron-based group (ie the NPCs the PCs had captured and interrogated) had decided to break away from Li's operation and try to set up their own independent bioweapons franchise, which was why they had taken the hi-tech gear the PCs had flown to Byron to the out-of-dome decommissioned army outpost that the PCs had assaulted in the previous session.
> 
> That's a reasonable amount of backstory for three sessions of play (at least it feels to me like it is), but it still leaves a lot of questions unanswered, like What is Li's agenda? Who is she working for? How did Alissa get infected on Shelley? Etc?
> 
> Second, therefore, I wrote a list of possibilities/conjectures, reflecting both player speculation from the previous session and some of my own ideas:
> 
> * Alissa has expertise of 4 in cutlass, whereas the ambitious Lt Li has only expertise 2 - maybe they were fencing rivals, and Li infected Alissa both to (i) get an experimental subject and (ii) get rid of an unwanted rival! She could have done that, and taken Alissa to Byron, right before she then flew on to Ardour-3 and recruited the PCs;
> 
> * How did Alissa escape from the warehouse on Byron? Most likely just carelessness and/or malfunction, with the cold sleep unit having stopped working (perhaps damaged by the corrosive atmosphere of the world);
> 
> * Is Li working for (some branch of) the Imperium? Or is one of the players correct in speculating that she is running an entirely private operation, with the Scout base on Olyx having become - in effect - her own fiefdom.
> 
> Third, I had read up on the laboratory starship St Christopher, described in the scenario Amber to Red in an early White Dwarf magazine - as written in that module it's not quite clear how it fits into the ship building rules, but I rebuilt it using those rules - it's a 490 ton custom hull starship, with a 90-ton custom small craft orbital laboratory. I decided that this was the vessel Leila Lo had used to bring samples from Enlil and to carry material to Olyx.
> 
> Fourth, and following on from that, I rolled up some NPCs to be Leila Lo's team. At least some of these had to be the NPCs who were running the warehouse in Byron's domed city, and so who had been captured when the PCs revealed the location of that warehouse to the Byron authorities. I decided that, while the PCs (in the previous session) were outside the Byron dome raiding the outpost, Leila Lo had been able to bail her arrested crew members. Altogether, including Leila Lo, I had 14 crew members who were able to fill all the positions on the St Christopher, plus had the technical expertise to have been plausible (but less than top-notch) operators of a bioweapons storage/experimentation facility. (None had very good  mechanical or medical skills, which helped explain Alissa's escape.)
> 
> The final bit of prep took place on the bus I caught to my friend's house where we were playing. The St Christopher has 15 staterooms, so on the bus I rolled up a final NPC crewmember to pass the time. This ended up being a naval enlistee with skill in Ship's Boat, Communications, Vacc Suit and Forward Observer. Which gave me an idea for how to I might start the session.
> 
> The last session had ended with the PCs capturing the outpost and interrogating the NPCs. But they had been debating what to do with them. So when we started, I first clarified a few things about the what equipment the PCs had loaded onto their own and the NPCs' ATVs (this was being done by some of the PCs while the others had interrogated); and then raised the question of the fate of the NPCs.
> 
> Two of the PCs (the nobles Vincenzo and Sir Glaxon) wanted to hand the NPCs over to the authorities on Byron. Three (Methwit the spy, Roland, and maybe Alissa?) were worried that this would alert Li and her co-conspirators to the PCs' actions in thwarting the bioweapons operation, and hence (a) get them into trouble, and (b) make it harder to infiltrate further. The other PCs were indifferent. Sir Glaxon has Leader-2, and none of the others have Leader skill, so I thought that probably balanced out the numbers; and Methwit has a high social standing (A) which meant I thought the nobles didn't have too much of an advantage in that respect; and so the debate was resolved by simple opposed throws - Vincenzo's player vs Methwit's player (who also is the player of Sir Glaxon, and so was rolling against as well as for himself). The nobles won, and so it was agreed to hand the NPCs over.
> 
> I then announced that I was rolling for the day's random encounter, with a 5 or 6 indicating something. I rolled a 5, and so announced that they heard a loud blast not far from the outpost. A quick scan with the periscope and video equipment revealed that they were under fire from an orbital triple beam laser. I also explained the game's directed fire rules, which require a forward observer for this sort of thing; with corrections happening in intervals of two-minute turns. (I had used Oslem, my bus-generated naval character, as my random encounter.)
> 
> This had the expected effect of triggering a degree of panic and mass exodus for the ATVs. I got the players to write up a list of who was on which vehicle, and then they headed off, trying to avoid being blown up by the starship firing on them. Max Attack - who has ATV skill (ie applicable to both wheeled and tracked vehicles) - drove the NPCs' ATV (which is tracked), while Methwit (who has wheeled vehicle skill) drove the PCs' (wheeled) ATV.
> 
> <snip account of the ATV escape>
> 
> When it came time to re-enter the dome, the players debated a bit what story they should tell. In the end they decided to go with the story that they were undercover Imperial operatives - with Max Attack as their local contact - who had been sent to uncover the bioweapons operations. Methwit forged some Imperial documents to this effect, and a successful Admin check meant that their story was accepted without the papers being scrutinised too closely. They forfeited their prisoners, the NPCs' ATV, and the NPCs' firearms, except for a laser rifle which Alissa retained for her personal use!
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The players then decided that they wanted to find a new patron, so they hung out at the Travellers' Aid Society (both Roland and Sir Glaxon are members) and made a roll (with the +1 for Methwit's Carousing-1, they needed 4 or better on 1D). The roll succeeded, and then I let them make the roll on the random patron chart to see what sort of patron they encountered. They rolled a diplomat, and after the initial interaction got a good enough reaction roll to be offered the mission.
> 
> The diplomat approached them on the basis that they were agents of the Planetary Rescue Systems Inspectorate, which is an Imperial agency introduced in the old White Dwarf adventure The Sable Rose affair, and which I had determined was part of the Imperial Interstellar Scout Service. (My one-and-a-half page write up of the Scouts, which I did after our first session when I thought it might come in handy, incorporates ideas from Andy Slack's old Traveller article on the Scouts, plus some of what is in Book 6 on the Scouts, plus other stuff like the PRSI.) It was left ambiguous whether he really thinks this is the case, or is instead playing along with the cover story the PCs gave to the Byron authorities.
> 
> As I explained to the players - but the characters Methwit and Roland already knew this - the PRSI is an inspectorate responsible for inspecting and making recommendations on measures taken by planetary governments in finding and aiding survivors of crash landings, and thus has a more general information-gathering and oversight role in relation to planetary systems monitoring of take-offs and landings, entry and exit of crewmembers, etc. It is also a cover for various covert intelligence squads.
> 
> The patron diplomat - who presented himself as a civilian Imperial agent - explained that there were concerns about whether a number of Naval, Marine and Scout personnel had gone missing on Olyx. In respect of some of these personnel, and also some Scout vessels associated with them, there were irregularities in records being maintained by the various bureaucracies (including the Scout's Detached Duty Office). This, as he explained, generated concerns about whether Olyx was properly monitoring the arrival and departure of vessels and personnel to its Scout base, so that - if required - planetary rescue functions might be properly performed. Hence the need for a PRSI team to make an inspection, and the PCs were clearly the team for the job!
> 
> The players didn't really indicate what their PCs guesses were as to exactly how much this NPC knew about Lt Li's bioweapons program and scheming in relation to Olyx, but I think they recognised that the description of the mission had a strong euphemistic aspect to it. This was probably confirmed when the NPC inquired whether or not their starship had weaponry fitted, and  - when they answered that it didn't - he then arranged for a twin pulse laser turret to be shipped to Byron and fitted to Vincenzo's yacht. The turret, plus the software necessary to operate it (both the Target and the Gunner Interact programs), cost Cr 3.5 million (1.5 m for the hardware, 2 m for the software - computing in the Traveller universe is very expensive and not very efficient) - but we all agree that that, plus a Cr 490,000 payment, bringing the total to MCr 3.99 - was still cheaper than risking an Imperial Scout ship being shot down over Olyx, and hence made some sense within the context of the fiction (while also constituting the throwing of some buffs by the GM to the players!).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The 490,000 on top of the money for weaponry was 400,000 to help Vincenzo meet mortgage payments on his ship (a bit more than 200,000 per month, and the escapades so far plus waiting for the arrival and fitting of the turret took the overall period of his ownership to the third month, which he hasn't paid yet); and 10,000 per head for 9 members of the team. The ninth member - in addition to the 8 PCs - was the NPC Zeno Doxa, a computer expert whom the PCs had captured in the outpost, and whom they now helped successfully defend against his initial charges to be released on bail. Computer skill was the one area of expertise that the PCs didn't fill, and they thought that they would need someone with that skill to hack the computer systems should they manage to land on Olyx.
> 
> Zeno also passed on an interesting bit of information to Roland, in an effort to ingratiate himself into the group - when studying subjects from Enlil in the cold berth equipment that was part of the bioweapons experiments, he had discovered that their DNA was not fully human. This was exciting to Roland, because his main goal in travelling the universe is to learn about alien artefacts and activities. And Enlil is on the way to Olyx.
> 
> The session ended with everyone reconciling their finances after gear purchases and training and upkeep costs, and the party ready to take off for Olyx.





prabe said:


> I'm also not entirely clear on your distinction in re: mysteries. I kinda accidentally ended up DMing one, but it was because play evolved that way, so I had to work out what had really happened and why--but I did so after the PCs had already demonstrated they were going to look into it and try to solve it.



I'm not @Campbell either, and as he has already posted in this thread we have some differences in our approaches to RPGing.

But the two extracts I've just posted show how I have run a mystery in the context of a game that is relatively low on setting prep and very low on "plot" prep. The two extracts are of the 1st and 4th sessions of that campaign. In the sixth session the PCs arrived at Olyx and in the seventh session they destroyed the bioweapons installation there; and although Vincenzo's yacht was rendered inoperable in the course of this the PCs were able to capture and take command of the St Christopher by way of a cunning infiltration, and then Vincenzo won it from Leila Lo in a game of chance.

Neither I nor the players know the answers to all the questions raised by the bioweapons conspiracy. I have some off-screen ideas about who else in the Marines was connected to Lt Li, but these have never come to light in play. No one knows where the funding was coming from.

So I don't think that a GM _has_ to work out what really happened and why.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> So I don't think that a GM _has_ to work out what really happened and why.




No, it's probably not absolutely necessary, and there almost certainly are ways to GM it so the results of action-resolutions determine the facts of the case (I'm thinking of something similar to your example of play from Burning Wheel, where the player said he was trying to determine that an item had specific properties, instead of trying to determine what those properties were). I'm really not a big fan of mystery adventures in TRPGs, for a variety of reasons, but this arc kinda fell out of working out the reasons behind an NPC hiring the PCs to accompany him to his hometown, combined with learning from a trustworthy oracle that the NPC is not a murderer; I guess that's a long way of saying I felt I had to, because I find it easier to be consistent that way. Horses for courses, I figure.


----------



## Maxperson

hawkeyefan said:


> A lot of times, it seems to me that when a player decides to do something other than what’s expected, it’s seen as problematic play. It’s too broadly applied.



I don't get this.  I understand what you are saying, but I don't get DMs that do that.  I very much look forward to when they do something other than what I expect.  It keeps me on my toes and makes the game much more interesting.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Maxperson said:


> I don't get this.  I understand what you are saying, but I don't get DMs that do that.  I very much look forward to when they do something other than what I expect.  It keeps me on my toes and makes the game much more interesting.




I think in most cases, it’s because the GM has invested prep in a specific story idea or path and expects some level of buy in from the players. 

This can sometimes be as simple as talking to a NPC that the GM was expecting the party to fight, or vice versa. Or it can be more broad where the GM is fine with them dealing with the NPC however they like....but expects them to continue pursuing the evil cult. 

I don’t think it’s an inherently bad thing in and of itself, but I think that there are ways to get players invested in the game that make buy in lore natural, and I think there are ways to introduce potential story ideas without expecting the PCs to engage with them in a specific way. 

I think the more specific the GM’s prep, the more likely this happens. “The blade itself inspires violence.”


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> I think in most cases, it’s because the GM has invested prep in a specific story idea or path and expects some level of buy in from the players.



Some level of buy-in from the players isn't that unreasonable a request.  One assumes there's already buy-in to the setting, game system, and so forth otherwise those players (most likely) wouldn't be at that table, and it's not a big jump from there to hope for some buy-in to a story idea even if it ends up going somewhere unintended later on.

That said, asking for total buy-in is overkill - unless you're running an agreed-on AP, of course.



> I don’t think it’s an inherently bad thing in and of itself, but I think that there are ways to get players invested in the game that make buy in lore natural



Agreed, however IMO most of these would revolve around a) a detailed setting and b) exploration of same, both of which are things some here seem to eschew.



> and I think there are ways to introduce potential story ideas without expecting the PCs to engage with them in a specific way.



The hope is that the players will engage with (at least one of) them at all.  I think a GM who introduces several potential story ideas (or hooks to different adventures) and sees if anything catches on is in a better spot than a GM who only has one story idea (or adventure sequence) for that campaign.



> I think the more specific the GM’s prep, the more likely this happens. “The blade itself inspires violence.”



I disagree.  As long as the GM is willing to acknowledge that some of the prep either won't be used or will have to be shelved for some later date, you're good to rock.


----------



## Jd Smith1

Retreater said:


> I was running a game last week in which half of the party handled a tense diplomatic situation very poorly. Going into the meeting, they knew the ruler was unstable and severely punished any dissent in his land - having heard from various NPCs and seeing it firsthand.
> The party got a private audience with the ruler and things were moving friendly enough, when a player (probably bored with the negotiations and playing the "but I have a low Charisma card") decided to trump the party's hand and yell out something to the effect of "you're crazy and don't deserve leadership here." For this affront, the ruler yelled for his guards to come and arrest that character. In response, another party member tried (and failed) to grapple the ruler and put a knife to his throat to take him as a hostage.
> The other two characters left the room and proclaimed their innocence. With some good roleplay (and great dice rolls) they were able to convince the ruler and his guards that they had no part of the attack and were allowed to leave.
> The two other characters (the would-be assassin and the instigator) were taken to the public stocks to await trial that could end in execution (or at the very least, expulsion from the land).
> That night they were given several opportunities to escape the stocks, but the would-be assassin failed and the instigator said he would rather die than let this corrupt man stay in power.
> What's a DM to do? Let it play out how it would in reality (execution) or break verisimilitude and reward murder-hoboism and let them escape with a deus ex machina? Meanwhile the players not involved in the coup attempt are being punished as the spotlight focuses on the two scoundrels - since their characters aren't wanting to be involved with the escape attempts.
> I did speak to the players after the game. The instigator apologized for "ruining the campaign." (Even though I tried to tell him that the campaign hadn't been ruined, merely that he has made the characters' situation more difficult and there would be consequences.)




I had something similar come up. The ruler had their tongues removed in such fashion that it would take an extremely expensive and rare restore them.

And the players had to live with their maimed PCs. 

The players brought it on themselves. If they don't like the consequences, they can stop running their PCs like children.

To be fair, I make sure that players in my campaigns understand that the people in power actually have power, and can use it freely.


----------



## Manbearcat

Its like a cast a Simulacram Spell!


----------



## FrogReaver

Jd Smith1 said:


> I had something similar come up. The ruler had their tongues removed in such fashion that it would take an extremely expensive and rare restore them.
> 
> And the players had to live with their maimed PCs.
> 
> The players brought it on themselves. If they don't like the consequences, they can stop running their PCs like children.
> 
> To be fair, I make sure that players in my campaigns understand that the people in power actually have power, and can use it freely.




I am fully against overly punitive consequences like this.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> Some level of buy-in from the players isn't that unreasonable a request.  One assumes there's already buy-in to the setting, game system, and so forth otherwise those players (most likely) wouldn't be at that table, and it's not a big jump from there to hope for some buy-in to a story idea



There are various alternatives here.

One is to get the players to present the GM with a story idea. This can be done in various ways using various devices that may be better or worse fits for various systems.

In this thread I already mentioned a BW session where the player had chosen for his PC the belief _I'm not leaving Hardby without gaining some magical item to use against my brother_. So I started the session with the PC at a bazaar in Hardby where a peddler was offering to sell various curios and trinkets, including an angel feather from the bright desert.

A more player-driven technique to presenting the GM with a story idea is to use "kickers". Here's my take on that technique and some examples, from the first session of 4e Dark Sun:



pemerton said:


> The first half or more of the session was spent on PC building (despite my admonition to the players that they could only have 1 hour). With three players, we got 3 PCs: an eladrin bard with the virtue of cunning (with the Veiled Alliance theme); a mul battlemind gladiator (with the gladiator theme and wielding a battle axe); and a half-giant barbarian gladiator (with the wilder theme and wielding a glaive).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> As the final part of PC building, and trying to channel a bit of indie spirit, I asked the players to come up with "kickers" for their PCs.
> 
> From The Forge, here is one person's definition of a kicker:
> 
> A Kicker is a term used in Sorcerer for the "event or realization that your character has experienced just before play begins."
> 
> For the player, the Kicker is what propels the character into the game, as well as the thing that hooks the player and makes him or her say, "Damn! I can't wait to play this character!"
> 
> It's also the thing that the player hopes to resolve at the end of the game. At the start of the next game with the same character, the resolution of the Kicker alters the character in some way, allowing the player to re-write the character to reflect changes.
> 
> In my case, I was mostly focused on the first of those things: an event or realisation that the character has experienced just before play begins, which thereby propels the character into the game. The main constraint I imposed was: your kicker somehow has to locate you within Tyr in the context of the Sorcerer-King having been overthrown. The reason for this constraint was (i) I want to be able to use the 4e campaign books, and (ii) D&D relies pretty heavily on group play, and so I didn't want the PCs to be too separated spatially or temporally.
> 
> The player of the barbarian came up with something first. Paraphrasing slightly, it went like this:
> 
> I was about to cut his head of in the arena, to the adulation of the crowd, when the announcement came that the Sorcerer-King was dead, and they all looked away.
> 
> So that answered the question that another player had asked, namely, how long since the Sorcerer-King's overthrow: it's just happened.
> 
> The other gladiator - whose name is "Twenty-nine", that being his number on the inventory of slaves owned by his master - had been mulling over (no pun intended) something about his master having been killed, and so we settled on the following:
> 
> I came back from the slave's privies, ready to receive my master's admonition to do a good job before I went out into the arena. But when I got back to the pen my master was dead. So I took the purse with 14 gp from his belt.
> 
> (The 14 gp was the character's change after spending his starting money on gear.)
> 
> Discussion of PC backgrounds and the like had already established that the eladrin was an envoy from The Lands Within The Wind, aiming to link up with the Veiled Alliance and thereby to take steps to save his homeland from the consequences of defiling. So his kicker was
> 
> My veiled alliance contact is killed in front of me as we are about to meet.
> 
> (A lot of death accompanying the revolution!)
> 
> With all that in place, we started the session proper.



As well as player-generated story ideas, it is also possible to have this be determined via random rolls. This is how our Classic Traveller game started, as per my post not far upthread: random generation of PCs, starting world, a few other worlds and a patron all suggest a starting situation, and that can then be built on during play. To reiterate a bit, in our CT game relevant aspects of the starting situation included a PC with a navy background and working as a medic, a marine officer patron, a high-tech world, a dilettante PC who had just won a starship in a bet, a PC spy, and a likely destination world with a disease-riddled atmosphere. It was this combination of elements - random generation and then riffing on that - that propelled the PCs into a collision with bioweapons conspirators.

In all these cases, of course, nothing will happen if the players aren't intereseted in playing their PCs. But there's no requirement for them to buy into a story idea _that is presented to them by the GM_.


----------



## Manbearcat

Lanefan said:


> Offhand I don't remember this example, sorry.  But I get the gist.
> 
> From the players' point of view the consequence of the gorge is unforeseen.  It matters not whether the GM had the gorge on her map all along or made it up on the fly (in badlands a sudden gorge makes perfect sense either way).




We agree!



> No, just the players. Ideally the GM has already thought of a bunch of possible outcomes and thus won't be caught off guard.




We don't agree!

This makes the assumption that (a) a GM will have a tendency to be caught off guard and (b) the GM won't do their best contextual, creative, thematically coherent work in the moment.  Seeing as how I've run conflicts numbering in the thousands where there was zero planning or prep for them and overwhelmingly they've been very successful (in terms of context, creativity, and thematic coherency) and rewarding, I disagree.  And where they haven't been satisfactory to participants (including myself), I've learned from it, aspired to be better, and worked to get there.

Again, it takes humility, forgiveness (of self), awareness, and practice...and competence inevitably emerges from that crucible.



> First off, there's a difference between a GM having a preconceived outcome and directing play towards it and a GM having a bunch of possible outcomes in mind (or in notes) and putting these in play as the situation suggests.  That said:
> 
> a) sounds like something @pemerton, who IMO has a rather strong and consistent anti-GM bias, would post.




You and I have conversed a ton on these boards.  I don't know why you're bringing pemerton up here.  You have to be very familiar with the facts that (a) I'm exclusively a GM (and I'm neither self-loathing nor am I anti-GM) and (b) many of my laments and cautionary tales about prep (specifically when I've talked about Force in the past) is the very real potential seduction by your own creation (a seduction which surely scales with the time, effort, and level satisfaction derived from the process of prep).  In my experience with a huge host of GMs (both in watching their games, in them confiding to me, and in online testimonials), its abundantly clear that there is a clear correlation between GM Force and high resolution metaplot/setting prep.  Its human, you work hard on a thing...you devote your time and mental + emotional energy to a thing...of course you want to see it enter play (despite the trajectory of play and the gamestate's evolution telling you that something else should enter play in its stead)!



> b) if the GM's only just now finding out what's going on, she's floundering.  The GM should IMO always be a few steps ahead.  In your chase example this would include having a half-decent map of the area done ahead of time so I could see what was where, and track the PCs' progress. (and the PCs would probably have learned some of what was where on their initial trip from the forest to the temple, if one was made, though when hotly pursued later they could still get lost as hell and find a gorge they didn't expect)
> 
> That's what prepping more than you need is for: reducing the chance of having to hit player-thrown curveballs and-or having to wing it, which IME often (as in, always!) leads to consistency issues when I don't remember some relevant detail I said an hour ago, can't write and talk at the same time, and don't want to grind everything to a halt every two minutes while I make notes on what I just said.  Not saying I can't wing it, but I prefer not to* if possible.




This is a testimonial.  I'm sure you feel vulnerable the less you prep Lanefan.  Maybe its possible that you would always struggle with less prep or lower resolution prep or an alternative model of prep or no prep at all.  However, I wonder, if you ran a game that demanded less/minimal prep (or prep of a certain type than you're used to) yet gave you tools for extremely fulfilling play nonetheless...lets say you ran Apocalypse World for me and a group of my players...and we forgave you your early lack of self-confidence and our collective stumbles...and you forgave yourself them...and we played...and played...and played...

I find it very hard to believe that you wouldn't become sufficinetly good at it to run a very rewarding game.  I think you're selling yourself short and I think your mental model sells the prospects of this type of play short.



> c) I don't hold the same strident objection to GM Force that some here seem to.  It has its place, particularly on nights (and they do happen) when the players are in story-consumption mode.  Even a full-on railroad has its place now and then, though I prefer to keep these occasions to a minimum.




I don't hold strident objection to GM Force as a fundamental part of TTRPGing games at large and specific play agendas more precisely.  Its CLEARLY a thing that is rampant in our hobby and the play agenda it supports is easily the most played.

My position is the same as its always been.  Force enables a particular type of authority distribution and play paradigm while disabling another type of each.  Some game systems and tables require Force because of this.  Others are undone by Force. Consequently, we need to be crystal clear on how it affects play so it can be deployed in the systems/games that require it and ensure it does not enter into play in games that forbid it.

Simultaneously, GMs that think "its impossible to GM without Force" need to understand why that isn't true...and they need to familiarize themselves (firsthand) with the systems that forbid Force (particularly the "why" and the "how").  And, if anything - say, they reject those games, they can then become better at deploying Force in the games that they embrace!


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> Some level of buy-in from the players isn't that unreasonable a request.  One assumes there's already buy-in to the setting, game system, and so forth otherwise those players (most likely) wouldn't be at that table, and it's not a big jump from there to hope for some buy-in to a story idea even if it ends up going somewhere unintended later on.
> 
> That said, asking for total buy-in is overkill - unless you're running an agreed-on AP, of course.




Sure, some amount of buy-in is always needed. But I mean buy in specifically to the GM's idea of what the game will be. Maybe the Gm has an idea for a campaign that's much like an adventure path. Or maybe the GM has bought the latest published adventure, and so he's going to run that. 

If a GM purchases "Curse of Strahd" and the players decide to play it....sure, they need to buy into some gothic themes and some vampire hunting. 

But a GM could also take ideas from his players, and then construct a game around those ideas. The GM can be the one to buy into what the players may want, too. 

Or some mix of those two approaches.



Lanefan said:


> Agreed, however IMO most of these would revolve around a) a detailed setting and b) exploration of same, both of which are things some here seem to eschew.




I think having a detailed setting helps. If there is a framework, then you've got most of what you need already. The rest is just reacting the the PCs. I don't know if exploration of the setting is what I have in mind, though. When I play, what I want to explore is my PC's place in the setting. I'm not necessarily interested in what's over the next hill so much as I am in why my character is going over that hill. That's what I want to explore. 

Because this is my preference when I play, it's how I approach GMing. I want to have players who are engaged because their characters are invested in the story and what's going on.



Lanefan said:


> The hope is that the players will engage with (at least one of) them at all.  I think a GM who introduces several potential story ideas (or hooks to different adventures) and sees if anything catches on is in a better spot than a GM who only has one story idea (or adventure sequence) for that campaign.




Sure, I can see that. I mix all kinds of things into my 5E campaign. I've run a few of WotC's published adventures (or parts of them, at least) as part of our campaign. I refigured a lot of them to fit what we had going on, but some of the ideas are very present. Our 5E campaign is very much about celebrating all of D&D lore, so it works for that campaign. Although I think I am done running published adventures based on how the last one went. 

I try to lean on my players for story hooks and ideas more than introducing my own, although I still do introduce some. D&D can only be so player driven......the DM has to have some stuff prepared, or some ideas in play about what may happen next.



Lanefan said:


> I disagree.  As long as the GM is willing to acknowledge that some of the prep either won't be used or will have to be shelved for some later date, you're good to rock.




But this is my point.....the more specific the GM's prep, the more likely I think it is to happen. Sure, there may be some folks out there who can prep a ton of potential material only to watch the bulk of it not wind up in play. I don't know if this is typical or not....my guess would be no.....but I'm sure it happens. I think most folks have time limits on the amount of prep that they do, and so they need to choose how they spend that time. 

I recently experienced this in preparing for online play. I had our next session prepped. I do very loose prep.....pretty much just some bullet points and maybe a list of relevant NPCs, all largely based on past sessions. Then the pandemic hit, and we moved our game online. I found it nearly impossible to prep online D&D the way I like to because so much has to be done ahead of time in programs like Roll20.....you need a map and it really should be loaded with tokens and statblocks and so on for the antagonists. It requires a GM to be more specifically prepared prior to play. I did that next session, and then I placed our 5E campaign on hold until we can play face to face again.

I found that it was basically me deciding what the coming session would consist of ahead of time, and designing that. The format did not allow for the more freeform approach that I prefer. Not without going pure theater of the mind....but my players don't prefer that for D&D (despite being fine with it in other games). 

And I think that this is generally a trend.....most GMs prep ahead of time, and then the session consists of the things they've prepped. I don't think that's all that surprising or controversial. The less specific the prep, the less likely the GM is forcing a specific path for the game. 

I want to be clear that I don't think that this is a problem, and that even games that are prepped by the GM ahead of time can still be fun, and can still allow for plenty of significant player choice and so on. I just prefer not to commit so strongly to what the game "will be".


----------



## Jd Smith1

FrogReaver said:


> I am fully against overly punitive consequences like this.




It wasn't overly punitive in any sense. Given the NPC in question, the outcome was far less than it might have been.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> There are various alternatives here.
> 
> One is to get the players to present the GM with a story idea. This can be done in various ways using various devices that may be better or worse fits for various systems.



This depends, of course, on the players one has at the table and how they view the roles of player and GM.

If I'm a player and a GM were to ask me for a story idea, I'd probably give her one...but at the same time I'd be wondering why she's GMing my story idea instead of her own and not playing, and why I'm playing and not GMing my idea.

In my view having some sort of story (or better yet, stories plural) in a setting is just another part of setting design, which is the purview of the GM.  It's up to the players how or if they have their PCs engage with any of it or whether they dream up something on their own, but if they do neither then there won't be much of a campaign.


> In this thread I already mentioned a BW session where the player had chosen for his PC the belief _I'm not leaving Hardby without gaining some magical item to use against my brother_. So I started the session with the PC at a bazaar in Hardby where a peddler was offering to sell various curios and trinkets, including an angel feather from the bright desert.



Yes, I think we've talked about this feather before. 



> As well as player-generated story ideas, it is also possible to have this be determined via random rolls. This is how our Classic Traveller game started, as per my post not far upthread: random generation of PCs, starting world, a few other worlds and a patron all suggest a starting situation, and that can then be built on during play. To reiterate a bit, in our CT game relevant aspects of the starting situation included a PC with a navy background and working as a medic, a marine officer patron, a high-tech world, a dilettante PC who had just won a starship in a bet, a PC spy, and a likely destination world with a disease-riddled atmosphere. It was this combination of elements - random generation and then riffing on that - that propelled the PCs into a collision with bioweapons conspirators.



So the characters were all rolled completely at random including (equivalents of) creature type, class or role, background, the whole lot?  Interesting idea.

I've done individual PCs of my own in this all-random way now and then when I need something fast and don't have any bright ideas, but I'd never given any thought to having the whole table do it.

I guess the risk in a D&D-like game might be that the dice would produce a party of four Thieves and a Monk or some other "sub-optimal" combination, but it'd be interesting to see what they did with it (and-or how long it lasted!).



> In all these cases, of course, nothing will happen if the players aren't intereseted in playing their PCs. But there's no requirement for them to buy into a story idea _that is presented to them by the GM_.



Here's a disconnect between us, in that I don't see those two things - playing my PC and buying into a GM-presented story - as having any connection at all.

I can play my PC just as well whether I'm playing through the GM's story, or someone else's story, or my own story, or no real story at all (i.e. pure sandbox). The only limitation - and it's common across all these types of play - is whether the GM gives the freedom (and allows the time!) for me to play my PC as I want to, to develop its personality and quirks and friendships and rivalries and romances and to role-play all these out with the other players (who are, I hope, doing the same thing with their PCs) and with the GM via the NPCs in the setting.

If the GM doesn't give me that freedom, e.g. by banning PC-PC romances or by banning certain alignments/ethos/personality types or by banning various potential PC actions, then the game will be much less satisfactory for me no matter whose story is being told or followed.


----------



## Lanefan

Manbearcat said:


> We agree!



Alert the media!  Pictures at eleven!



> We don't agree!



Ah, stand down the media alert, we're back to normal. 



> This makes the assumption that (a) a GM will have a tendency to be caught off guard and (b) the GM won't do their best contextual, creative, thematically coherent work in the moment.



In my own case (b) is a high enough risk that I try to avoid it when I can.



> Seeing as how I've run conflicts numbering in the thousands where there was zero planning or prep for them and overwhelmingly they've been very successful (in terms of context, creativity, and thematic coherency) and rewarding, I disagree.  And where they haven't been satisfactory to participants (including myself), I've learned from it, aspired to be better, and worked to get there.



Oh sure, sometimes it works out great.

But far too often it doesn't, and as I'm a bit of a perfectionist in these things "far too often" in my definition isn't that far above zero. 



> Again, it takes humility, forgiveness (of self), awareness, and practice...and competence inevitably emerges from that crucible.



Competence may arise from that crucible but along with it arise scars, self-doubt, player doubt (which is worse), occasional embarrassment, and games I'd really rather forget ever happened.



> You and I have conversed a ton on these boards.  I don't know why you're bringing pemerton up here.  You have to be very familiar with the facts that (a) I'm exclusively a GM (and I'm neither self-loathing nor am I anti-GM) and (b) many of my laments and cautionary tales about prep (specifically when I've talked about Force in the past) is the very real potential seduction by your own creation (a seduction which surely scales with the time, effort, and level satisfaction derived from the process of prep).  In my experience with a huge host of GMs (both in watching their games, in them confiding to me, and in online testimonials), its abundantly clear that there is a clear correlation between GM Force and high resolution metaplot/setting prep.  Its human, you work hard on a thing...you devote your time and mental + emotional energy to a thing...of course you want to see it enter play (despite the trajectory of play and the gamestate's evolution telling you that something else should enter play in its stead)!



I suppose I don't see this as being as much of a problem as you might.

I mean really, if a GM has put a lot of effort into something she deserves a chance for it to see play at some point, at which point it'll either work out or it won't.  And I think - or I'd like to think - most players respect the work that's gone into it and are generally willing to give these things a try.

As a very current example, some few weeks back my DM started running our game online.  Four (?) sessions of it have convinced me it's an absolutely awful way to play, and pretty much the only reason I haven't bailed on it till we can meet in person again is that I realize the crazy amount of work he's had to put into setting it all up and that bailing out would thus be very poor form and disrespectful of that effort.



> This is a testimonial.  I'm sure you feel vulnerable the less you prep Lanefan.  Maybe its possible that you would always struggle with less prep or lower resolution prep or an alternative model of prep or no prep at all.  However, I wonder, if you ran a game that demanded less/minimal prep (or prep of a certain type than you're used to) yet gave you tools for extremely fulfilling play nonetheless...lets say you ran Apocalypse World for me and a group of my players...and we forgave you your early lack of self-confidence and our collective stumbles...and you forgave yourself them...and we played...and played...and played...



Early stumbles and lack of self-confidence are a fact of life when learning any new system, and (usually) forgiven all round.

What I wouldn't forgive myself for, and wouldn't expect my players to forgive (and honestly would be disappointed in them if they did), would be the inevitable conflicts of consistency that would arise when I gave some relevant detail and then directly contradicted it an hour or a session or a year later. I'm a horrible note-taker on the fly and internal setting consistency is IMO non-negotiable.  (I'm also that guy who will pick up on inconsistencies when I'm a player, and jump all over them)



> I find it very hard to believe that you wouldn't become sufficinetly good at it to run a very rewarding game.  I think you're selling yourself short and I think your mental model sells the prospects of this type of play short.



I could probably do it just fine for something short - a few adventures, maybe - but remember, my campaigns go for ten years and more; and even with all the prep I've done I still sometimes find keeping everythng straight gets mighty unwieldy. 



> I don't hold strident objection to GM Force as a fundamental part of TTRPGing games at large and specific play agendas more precisely.  Its CLEARLY a thing that is rampant in our hobby and the play agenda it supports is easily the most played.
> 
> My position is the same as its always been.  Force enables a particular type of authority distribution and play paradigm while disabling another type of each.  Some game systems and tables require Force because of this.  Others are undone by Force. Consequently, we need to be crystal clear on how it affects play so it can be deployed in the systems/games that require it and ensure it does not enter into play in games that forbid it.
> 
> Simultaneously, GMs that think "its impossible to GM without Force" need to understand why that isn't true...and they need to familiarize themselves (firsthand) with the systems that forbid Force (particularly the "why" and the "how").  And, if anything - say, they reject those games, they can then become better at deploying Force in the games that they embrace!



Part of this also depends on the players one has.  Some are more than capable of driving a story.  Others...well...aren't, and need the story to be provided.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure, some amount of buy-in is always needed. But I mean buy in specifically to the GM's idea of what the game will be. Maybe the Gm has an idea for a campaign that's much like an adventure path. Or maybe the GM has bought the latest published adventure, and so he's going to run that.
> 
> If a GM purchases "Curse of Strahd" and the players decide to play it....sure, they need to buy into some gothic themes and some vampire hunting.
> 
> But a GM could also take ideas from his players, and then construct a game around those ideas. The GM can be the one to buy into what the players may want, too.



As long as the players don't mind waiting.  Constructing a game and-or setting takes me more or less a year, depending how much rules revision I'm doing between campaigns.  In the interests of newness and meaningful setting exploration I don't re-use settings, nor do I use published ones.

So, if I get some players together and ask them what they want in a game now, maybe by this time next year it'll be ready - by which time their desires might have changed and-or some of them might not even be available to play.



> I think having a detailed setting helps. If there is a framework, then you've got most of what you need already. The rest is just reacting the the PCs. I don't know if exploration of the setting is what I have in mind, though. When I play, what I want to explore is my PC's place in the setting. I'm not necessarily interested in what's over the next hill so much as I am in why my character is going over that hill. That's what I want to explore.



Where I want to see what's over that next hill.  The character exploration happens around the campfire once we get there. 



> Sure, I can see that. I mix all kinds of things into my 5E campaign. I've run a few of WotC's published adventures (or parts of them, at least) as part of our campaign. I refigured a lot of them to fit what we had going on, but some of the ideas are very present. Our 5E campaign is very much about celebrating all of D&D lore, so it works for that campaign. Although I think I am done running published adventures based on how the last one went.



Dare I ask what happened, in short form?

Much of the rest I just covered in my previous post to this one.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> As long as the players don't mind waiting.  Constructing a game and-or setting takes me more or less a year, depending how much rules revision I'm doing between campaigns.  In the interests of newness and meaningful setting exploration I don't re-use settings, nor do I use published ones.
> 
> So, if I get some players together and ask them what they want in a game now, maybe by this time next year it'll be ready - by which time their desires might have changed and-or some of them might not even be available to play.




Can’t involving the players be a year long process too?

I know I said a detailed setting is a good tool, but I feel like this may be overkill. Hard to say without knowing why it takes so long. But I think no matter what is going into this year long prep,  player involvement doesn't need to be limited to just the endpoints. 



Lanefan said:


> Where I want to see what's over that next hill.  The character exploration happens around the campfire once we get there.




Yeah, that’s cool. I know our preferences don’t exactly align here. I like when the game is specifically about the player characters.



Lanefan said:


> Dare I ask what happened, in short form?




Sure. I decided to run Tomb of Annihilation as part of the campaign. I did this because Chult was already a prominent location for things that happened in the game, and I also wanted to use Acererak in some way, and the Death Curse seemed like an interesting threat to use since some PCs had been raised. 

All the story stuff worked fine. The issue was the more classic dungeon crawl type approach to the game once we got into the tomb itself. I found myself being far more beholden to what was written than I should have been, and the procedural aspect wasn’t as appealing to my players as I had hoped. 

I finally realized what was going on and changed things up and things improved. But we had a few sessions with some dissatisfying parts. 

This is why I’m saying prep can lead to the GM forcing things. I mean....that’s exactly what happens in a dungeon, right? It’s all predetermined. This is how you get past this door, this is how you find that trap, and so on.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> This is why I’m saying prep can lead to the GM forcing things. I mean....that’s exactly what happens in a dungeon, right? It’s all predetermined. This is how you get past this door, this is how you find that trap, and so on.




Yes, prepping something can lead the GM to insist the players encounter it. but it doesn't need to. In the case of the dungeon, that sort of play is largely the point of a heavily-keyed dungeon, AFAIK. And the DM (or the adventure writer) saying "this door opens thus" doesn't feel like the GM forcing things the way that a Quantum Ogre (or some other avatar of Illusionism) does. Dungeons are highly channelized adventures, and some players (and some GMs) may not be happy with them for that reason, but I think they can be run honestly and scrupulously, even if one isn't satisfying an OSR-ish jones with them.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> Yes, prepping something can lead the GM to insist the players encounter it. but it doesn't need to. In the case of the dungeon, that sort of play is largely the point of a heavily-keyed dungeon, AFAIK. And the DM (or the adventure writer) saying "this door opens thus" doesn't feel like the GM forcing things the way that a Quantum Ogre (or some other avatar of Illusionism) does. Dungeons are highly channelized adventures, and some players (and some GMs) may not be happy with them for that reason, but I think they can be run honestly and scrupulously, even if one isn't satisfying an OSR-ish jones with them.




Yeah, I would agree that there are different ways the GM can force things, and some are worse than others. 

And I agree that prepping things ahead of time does not have to result in the GM forcing things. Just that it’s predisposed to do so. 

Certainly it is more likely than with a no-prep GMing style, right?


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> Yeah, I would agree that there are different ways the GM can force things, and some are worse than others.
> 
> And I agree that prepping things ahead of time does not have to result in the GM forcing things. Just that it’s predisposed to do so.
> 
> Certainly it is more likely than with a no-prep GMing style, right?




I think it depends on how no-prep the GM is, and how willing the GM is to admit the story that emerges from play belongs to the PCs, not the GM or anything the GM owns. I can imagine a hypothetical GM running a hypothetical no-prep game where the story ended up being more about the NPCs or some other aspect of the world than about the PCs, where nothing the PCs did changed the direction of the story; I can even imagine it happening unintentionally, without malice or bad faith. I can also imagine a hypothetical GM having at least where the PCs are prepped to the door hinges and running so the story belonged to the PCs; this seems far more likely to be an intentional decision. I'll admit that both of those might be fringe cases--the former probably more than the latter, I think.

That said, there is definitely a temptation to use what you have prepped no matter what the PCs do, which kinda by definition doesn't exist if you have nothing prepped.


----------



## Nagol

hawkeyefan said:


> Yeah, I would agree that there are different ways the GM can force things, and some are worse than others.
> 
> And I agree that prepping things ahead of time does not have to result in the GM forcing things. Just that it’s predisposed to do so.
> 
> Certainly it is more likely than with a no-prep GMing style, right?




Not really, GM force is more a marker of GM predisposition.  I've had GMs run using strong illusionism, choice negation, and other forms of force entirely ad hoc as well as fully-prepped key-for-lock treasure, heavily keyed systems.  Funny thing is, they are the same GMs.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> That said, there is definitely a temptation to use what you have prepped no matter what the PCs do, which kinda by definition doesn't exist if you have nothing prepped.




This is what I was getting at, yes. I would agree that GM force is a possibility no matter what system or GM style is in place. But some systems/styles actively work to discourage it. 



Nagol said:


> Not really, GM force is more a marker of GM predisposition.  I've had GMs run using strong illusionism, choice negation, and other forms of force entirely ad hoc as well as fully-prepped key-for-lock treasure, heavily keyed systems.  Funny thing is, they are the same GMs.




That may be. As I replied to @prabe above, the possibility is always there. But I do think that with some systems, a GM exercising force starts to move into bad faith, and in other systems it does not. 

For instance, take some of the discussion from earlier in the thread. Some games allow the GM the ability to decide that a declared action for a PC is impossible to achieve. In such systems, it’s accepted that this is within the GM’s authority. Contrast that to systems that follow the principle of “say yes or roll the dice”, where a GM deciding a declared action is not possible violates that principle. 

Force can always happen. And I would imagine there are many GMs out there for whom it is the only way they understand how to play, and that they try to use it regardless of system or play expectations. However, I don’t think that means that some games aren’t more prone to allow GM force, or don’t do as much to actively discourage it as other games do.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> For instance, take some of the discussion from earlier in the thread. Some games allow the GM the ability to decide that a declared action for a PC is impossible to achieve. In such systems, it’s accepted that this is within the GM’s authority. Contrast that to systems that follow the principle of “say yes or roll the dice”, where a GM deciding a declared action is not possible violates that principle.
> 
> Force can always happen. And I would imagine there are many GMs out there for whom it is the only way they understand how to play, and that they try to use it regardless of system or play expectations. However, I don’t think that means that some games aren’t more prone to allow GM force, or don’t do as much to actively discourage it as other games do.




I feel there's a difference between a GM in a game where the GM determines impossibility saying "it's not physically possible to jump across this canyon" and a GM in that same game saying "you can't change that NPC's mind." The former action should still be disallowed in "say yes or roll the dice" (and it seems as though there should be a mechanism to disallow it); the latter should be allowed. Even in the latter it might not be problematic (the players might reasonably expect their characters not to be able to change the god-like entity's mind, if it doesn't want them to).


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> I feel there's a difference between a GM in a game where the GM determines impossibility saying "it's not physically possible to jump across this canyon" and a GM in that same game saying "you can't change that NPC's mind." The former action should still be disallowed in "say yes or roll the dice" (and it seems as though there should be a mechanism to disallow it); the latter should be allowed. Even in the latter it might not be problematic (the players might reasonably expect their characters not to be able to change the god-like entity's mind, if it doesn't want them to).




Sure. I think that table consensus was mentioned earlier, and genre expectations and the like. 

But there are also Player Principles that factor in. Blades in the Dark has a great one: “Don’t Be a Weasel”. 

It covers a lot of territory....such as a player declaring his character jumps a couple hundred feet across a canyon in the absence of some setting element or PC ability that would allow him to do so.


----------



## Nagol

hawkeyefan said:


> This is what I was getting at, yes. I would agree that GM force is a possibility no matter what system or GM style is in place. But some systems/styles actively work to discourage it.
> 
> 
> 
> That may be. As I replied to @prabe above, the possibility is always there. But I do think that with some systems, a GM exercising force starts to move into bad faith, and in other systems it does not.
> 
> For instance, take some of the discussion from earlier in the thread. Some games allow the GM the ability to decide that a declared action for a PC is impossible to achieve. In such systems, it’s accepted that this is within the GM’s authority. Contrast that to systems that follow the principle of “say yes or roll the dice”, where a GM deciding a declared action is not possible violates that principle.
> 
> Force can always happen. And I would imagine there are many GMs out there for whom it is the only way they understand how to play, and that they try to use it regardless of system or play expectations. However, I don’t think that means that some games aren’t more prone to allow GM force, or don’t do as much to actively discourage it as other games do.




Re: "Say yes or roll the dice"

DM:  Your detective PCs realize the bad-guy just got in his car and driving away -- he's about half a mile ahead of you.  What do you do?
Player: I jump in front of his car!
DM: Err....

The philosophy of 'say yes or roll' relies on sensible interactions with the established fiction.  The DM determining auto-fails also only works with sensible interactions with established fiction.  In that case however, the players need to be more cautious as there can be layers of fiction that have been established, but not yet shared.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure. I think that table consensus was mentioned earlier, and genre expectations and the like.
> 
> But there are also Player Principles that factor in. Blades in the Dark has a great one: “Don’t Be a Weasel”.
> 
> It covers a lot of territory....such as a player declaring his character jumps a couple hundred feet across a canyon in the absence of some setting element or PC ability that would allow him to do so.




I think "Don't be a weasel" is good advice, for any player, in any TRPG. I am fortunate that I don't have any players at the tables I GM for that have given me that sort of trouble. I rarely declare things utterly impossible in-game, I do a lot of auto-success.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Nagol said:


> The DM determining auto-fails also only works with sensible interactions with established fiction.





I agree with your post overall...except this bit I’ve quoted above. 

I think this statement can be the case, but I also think a DM can block actions he considers impossible, but that others would consider possible. Usually in situations that lack a clearly measurable thing, such as the example with the canyon.

Social interactions such as convincing someone or swaying their opinion or lying to them....these are harder to classify as “impossible”. But many do so.


----------



## Nagol

hawkeyefan said:


> I agree with your post overall...except this bit I’ve quoted above.
> 
> I think this statement can be the case, but I also think a DM can block actions he considers impossible, but that others would consider possible. Usually in situations that lack a clearly measurable thing, such as the example with the canyon.
> 
> Social interactions such as convincing someone or swaying their opinion or lying to them....these are harder to classify as “impossible”. But many do so.




If there is legitimate disagreement as to possibility of success then determining an auto-fail isn't a sensible interaction.  Can people do it still? Yeah.  But it is on par with someone claiming their PC can "totally" carry their gear, the partner's gear and their partner while running from a bear.

However, approaching the secret mistress of the duke with an appeal to join the resistance and replace the duchy with a democracy may just be an auto-fail.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> Social interactions such as convincing someone or swaying their opinion or lying to them....these are harder to classify as “impossible”. But many do so.




I have declared outright that the PCs weren't able to use Insight to get a feel for whether a god-like entity was lying to them (she wasn't). But they knew who and what she was.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> Can’t involving the players be a year long process too?



Not if they want to explore the setting as a new previously-unknown thing.  Helping design it kinda takes away from the new-ness of it.



> I know I said a detailed setting is a good tool, but I feel like this may be overkill. Hard to say without knowing why it takes so long.



The time-eating bits mostly revolve around

a) looking at my last campaign, reviewing what rules worked and what didn't along with any ideas I/we have come up with in the meantime, and in effect rewriting those bits of the game system that need it (our system is about 95% homebrew these days, meaning I can't just rely on someone's published rules)
b) mapping - I do fairly detailed colour maps of areas I think might get explored during play, and these take time both in the physical production and in dreaming up what'll go on them; and then making notes of what's what
c) I rebuild the pantheons every time out to suit the new setting, using a universal base I came up with ages ago
d) history and backstory of the setting needs a fair bit of effort if the setting is to have any sense of permanence and continuity
e) all the little stuff not included in the above, or spawning from it.



> But I think no matter what is going into this year long prep,  player involvement doesn't need to be limited to just the endpoints.



Perhaps, but for me as a player it'd be like watching someone wrap my Yule gift - there's no surprise left when I open it on Yule.  Or it's like knowing key plot spoilers before seeing a movie for the first time.

I try to (and want to) give that same sense of discovery to my players that I like to have when myself a player.



> Sure. I decided to run Tomb of Annihilation as part of the campaign. I did this because Chult was already a prominent location for things that happened in the game, and I also wanted to use Acererak in some way, and the Death Curse seemed like an interesting threat to use since some PCs had been raised.
> 
> All the story stuff worked fine. The issue was the more classic dungeon crawl type approach to the game once we got into the tomb itself. I found myself being far more beholden to what was written than I should have been, and the procedural aspect wasn’t as appealing to my players as I had hoped.
> 
> I finally realized what was going on and changed things up and things improved. But we had a few sessions with some dissatisfying parts.
> 
> This is why I’m saying prep can lead to the GM forcing things. I mean....that’s exactly what happens in a dungeon, right? It’s all predetermined. This is how you get past this door, this is how you find that trap, and so on.



Ah.  For me that probably would have been the fun part.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Nagol said:


> If there is legitimate disagreement as to possibility of success then determining an auto-fail isn't a sensible interaction.  Can people do it still? Yeah.  But it is on par with someone claiming their PC can "totally" carry their gear, the partner's gear and their partner while running from a bear.




Sure....I think that players should have principles, too, and should not try to finagle things their way. See my “Don’t Be a Weasel” note above.



Nagol said:


> However, approaching the secret mistress of the duke with an appeal to join the resistance and replace the duchy with a democracy may just be an auto-fail.




Perhaps, yes. I mean, I understand what you’re saying. But....who decides that she is so faithful to the duke? 

There are games that would let the roll determine such things. So if the PCs try to influence her and roll poorly, they fail. If they roll close but not quite, they still don’t sway her, but perhaps a PC picks up on her body language and realizes she’s the duke’s mistress.

If it’s a case of the GM already having decided it, then we start to get into some manner of force. The GM wants to preserve what he’s determined ahead of time. Is this acceptable use of force? In many games, absolutely. It’s likely even expected. In other games, it may not be. 

Even if we’re talking about a system that allows the GM to determine an auto-failure, why can’t she be swayed? Does she truly love the duke, or is he merely her pawn or a stepping stone? Maybe she changes her mind, or maybe she thinks she’s found another person to latch onto. 

Now, don’t get me wrong....I have certain bits of detail that are predetermined like this in my campaign. I don’t think it’s “wrong”....I simply prefer to limit it as much as possible because it is an example of force.


----------



## prabe

Lanefan said:


> Perhaps, but for me as a player it'd be like watching someone wrap my Yule gift - there's no surprise left when I open it on Yule.  Or it's like knowing key plot spoilers before seeing a movie for the first time.
> 
> I try to (and want to) give that same sense of discovery to my players that I like to have when myself a player.




I don't think I know of any GMs who don't run games they'd particularly enjoy as players. I know it's one of the things I explicitly keep near the front of my mind, particularly when I'm thinking about stuff between sessions.


----------



## Nagol

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure....I think that players should have principles, too, and should not try to finagle things their way. See my “Don’t Be a Weasel” note above.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, yes. I mean, I understand what you’re saying. But....who decides that she is so faithful to the duke?



The person or group who built/discovered the fiction, obviously.



> There are games that would let the roll determine such things. So if the PCs try to influence her and roll poorly, they fail. If they roll close but not quite, they still don’t sway her, but perhaps a PC picks up on her body language and realizes she’s the duke’s mistress.




Of course there are and they might even have been used here with a subset of players present, but I'm discussing the case where that fictional positioning has already been determined by whatever source.  For example, 6 sessions ago, the group tried to ferret out a secret at court and accidently discovered the identity of the duke's mistress.  Ultimately, the players decided to pursue a different tactic to their goal.  Today a different PC decided to approach and recruit her into the plot against her lover.



> If it’s a case of the GM already having decided it, then we start to get into some manner of force. The GM wants to preserve what he’s determined ahead of time. Is this acceptable use of force? In many games, absolutely. It’s likely even expected. In other games, it may not be.



It doesn't matter how it was determined.  If it was created by the GM as part of the 'riddle' or the scenario, as colour, or as part of a (mostly forgotten) group exercise is immaterial.  It isn't force if the GM runs the situation honestly to its potential.  If the game includes an exploratory environment then it isn't force to have things that can be found via exploration that might hurt if not discovered.  It is as much 'force' as a concealed pit trap is 'force' when the PCs move across it.



> Even if we’re talking about a system that allows the GM to determine an auto-failure, why can’t she be swayed? Does she truly love the duke, or is he merely her pawn or a stepping stone? Maybe she changes her mind, or maybe she thinks she’s found another person to latch onto.




Presumably the same prepared fictional positioning determines that.  Could some secret mistresses be swayed or even willing to help overthrow their lovers? Of course!  This one isn't because <the positioning that's been determined>.



> Now, don’t get me wrong....I have certain bits of detail that are predetermined like this in my campaign. I don’t think it’s “wrong”....I simply prefer to limit it as much as possible because it is an example of force.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> In the case of the dungeon, that sort of play is largely the point of a heavily-keyed dungeon, AFAIK. And the DM (or the adventure writer) saying "this door opens thus" doesn't feel like the GM forcing things the way that a Quantum Ogre (or some other avatar of Illusionism) does. Dungeons are highly channelized adventures, and some players (and some GMs) may not be happy with them for that reason, but I think they can be run honestly and scrupulously, even if one isn't satisfying an OSR-ish jones with them.



I understand the point of OSR/"skilled play" dungeon crawls.

But if the point of the game isn't skilled play (eg instead of mapping and poking and prodding, dungeoneering actions are resolved via skill checks) then if we're still using GM maps-and-notes I think that is going to limit player agency over the shared fiction. Much of what happens will be determined by the GM's decisions, made in preparing those maps and notes.



prabe said:


> I can also imagine a hypothetical GM having at least where the PCs are prepped to the door hinges and running so the story belonged to the PCs



Well I'm not 100% sure what it means for the story to belong to the PCs. But if the main action is _checking out where the PCs are _and if the resolution of all that is _in the stuff the GM has prepped to the door-hinges_ then I think the fiction will "belong" - I would say, _will be authored by_ - the GM for the main part.

If the action _isn't _checking out where the PCs are but rather is about something else - such that _where the PCs are _is just a backdrop - then it might be different, but in that case why worry about prepping it? Eg in the episode of Burning Wheel play I described upthread it makes no difference whether I've mapped out the Hardby market or not. If I did that would just be me having fun on my own, but wouldn't be any sort of contribution to play.

There's a whole legacy of associating _prep_ with _maps-and-notes _that comes out of the histor of D&D but can sometimes seem like it has no clear rationale any more. Apocalypse World is interesting in this respect for showing how prep can look quite different from that.



prabe said:


> I can imagine a hypothetical GM running a hypothetical no-prep game where the story ended up being more about the NPCs or some other aspect of the world than about the PCs, where nothing the PCs did changed the direction of the story





prabe said:


> I feel there's a difference between a GM in a game where the GM determines impossibility saying "it's not physically possible to jump across this canyon" and a GM in that same game saying "you can't change that NPC's mind." The former action should still be disallowed in "say yes or roll the dice" (and it seems as though there should be a mechanism to disallow it); the latter should be allowed.





Nagol said:


> Re: "Say yes or roll the dice"
> 
> DM:  Your detective PCs realize the bad-guy just got in his car and driving away -- he's about half a mile ahead of you.  What do you do?
> Player: I jump in front of his car!
> DM: Err....
> 
> The philosophy of 'say yes or roll' relies on sensible interactions with the established fiction.  The DM determining auto-fails also only works with sensible interactions with established fiction.  In that case however, the players need to be more cautious as there can be layers of fiction that have been established, but not yet shared.



A game where the GM just makes up whatever s/he likes on the spot will likely not be one where the players exercise a lot of agency over the share ficiton. But that's what mechanics are for!

Upthread there has already been quite a bit of discussion about how to resolve questions of fictional positioning. Where it's in doubt it can be made a matter of table consensus.

But we also need to talk about techniques for introducing fiction. Eg, to pick up on the canyon-that-can't-be-jumped: suppose that that has been narrated by the GM as a consequence of failure in the attempt to flee across country, then it may be fair game to establish it as un-jumpable. The effect of the failure is to shift the arena of conflict to something other than jumping prowess. The same thing could be true for the escape car. (See also the quotes upthread from John Harper, about when to make a soft move - _He's going for his car - what do you do? - _and a hard move - _He's in his car and half-a-mile down the road_.)

Deciding how hard to make one's moves as a GM, and what arenas of conflict to rule in or out, is part of the skill of GMing. Doing it as a failure consequence generally allows for more hard-ness than framing. If the player has lost the check, they know that their preference for the fiction is not coming to pass.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I understand the point of OSR/"skilled play" dungeon crawls.
> 
> But if the point of the game isn't skilled play (eg instead of mapping and poking and prodding, dungeoneering actions are resolved via skill checks) then if we're still using GM maps-and-notes I think that is going to limit player agency over the shared fiction. Much of what happens will be determined by the GM's decisions, made in preparing those maps and notes.




I guess it depends on the scale of the choices you're looking at, and the kinds of choices the PCs are making. I've never really been a big fan of any sort of adventure that has the word "crawl" in it, so I'm almost certainly not going to prep one in any sort of "approved" way. I'll still try to run it honestly, but it'll probably come down to larger-scale choices (which section of the dungeon-esque area they go to next) the PCs make.



pemerton said:


> Well I'm not 100% sure what it means for the story to belong to the PCs. But if the main action is _checking out where the PCs are _and if the resolution of all that is _in the stuff the GM has prepped to the door-hinges_ then I think the fiction will "belong" - I would say, _will be authored by_ - the GM for the main part.




In such an instance, the setting might belong to the GM, but what happens--that's the actual story--would belong to the PCs. The only way the GM can retain ownership is not to allow the PCs to change it.



pemerton said:


> There's a whole legacy of associating _prep_ with _maps-and-notes _that comes out of the histor of D&D but can sometimes seem like it has no clear rationale any more.




I agree that prep can look very different from a keyed map. My own prep rarely includes anything like any maps. It's concerned far more with what has been going on before the PCs arrive, and what is likely to happen in their absence, and usually the consequences of what seem to me to be the most likely PC courses of actions (which are not of course the only things that can happen, but they do serve as something to base other reactions on).



pemerton said:


> A game where the GM just makes up whatever s/he likes on the spot will likely not be one where the players exercise a lot of agency over the share ficiton. But that's what mechanics are for!




Eh. Any GM who's gong to make up ... whatever, probably isn't going to be constrained by mechanics.



pemerton said:


> But we also need to talk about techniques for introducing fiction. Eg, to pick up on the canyon-that-can't-be-jumped: suppose that that has been narrated by the GM as a consequence of failure in the attempt to flee across country, then it may be fair game to establish it as un-jumpable. The effect of the failure is to shift the arena of conflict to something other than jumping prowess.




Or, if it's been mapped, and the PCs have encountered it. If a PC attempts to jump it anyway, it's probably worth making sure the player understands that this isn't some little groove in the ground, but an actual large-scale geographic feature. If that's clear and the PC attempts to jump it anyway, the possibility it's an out-of-game problem starts to rear its head.



pemerton said:


> Deciding how hard to make one's moves as a GM, and what arenas of conflict to rule in or out, is part of the skill of GMing. Doing it as a failure consequence generally allows for more hard-ness than framing. If the player has lost the check, they know that their preference for the fiction is not coming to pass.




Basing the fiction on the outcome of the roll seems eminently appropriate for the games you've shared play examples for, but I don't think that having the in-fiction reality be more objective necessarily removes player agency--it just adds some burden to the GM that the players know the situation before they act (or at least, they know that's how the game is being run). If I'm running a mystery that I've prepped (where I know at least what the core situation is, if not all the details) and I run it honestly--I answer the PCs' questions forthrightly, skipping between player skill (roleplay) and character skill (Ability Checks, in 5E) as needed--I don't think I'm removing the possibility of player or character agency. It's plausible-shading-to-probable that you disagree.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Nagol said:


> It doesn't matter how it was determined.  If it was created by the GM as part of the 'riddle' or the scenario, as colour, or as part of a (mostly forgotten) group exercise is immaterial.  It isn't force if the GM runs the situation honestly to its potential.  If the game includes an exploratory environment then it isn't force to have things that can be found via exploration that might hurt if not discovered.  It is as much 'force' as a concealed pit trap is 'force' when the PCs move across it.



I think you're mixing two different things here with the mistress and the pit trap.  Assuming we're running a dungeoncrawl, the pit trap is a valid obstacle because the players can, through the PCs, engage in various approaches to discover it.  Failing to mount this kind of skilled play results in finding the pit trap in a less than optimal way.

However, the mistress isn't like the pit trap -- there isn't a set of skilled play that can be brought to bear without the GM building the social encounter like a dungeon.  Most (all?) don't do this, or anything close to this.  Rather, the information about the mistress can be discovered if you guess this is a thing and if you take the appropriate action.  The problem is the approach -- either the players, as part of their skilled play, are expected to investigate every NPC for secret lovers (or, at least fictionally important NPCs), or they the players have to guess.  Granted, this can be shifted by foreshadowing the issue, but then it's not really the same situation.

Many GM's use their notes to determine things about the fiction that are more fully decided as one way by the GM than even the notes say.  The mistress may not be faithful, or may be a mistress against her will, or... lots of possibilities.  If the GM writes down that the Duke has a mistress, and that this mistress is a powerful noble that might be attractive to the players as an ally absent the knowledge about being the Duke's mistress, and that the mistress would never betray the Duke, then you're in Force territory and need to be careful about play.  Just the GM writing these notes down (or keeping them in their head) does not turn this into a no Force situation.  Unless the GM foreshadows these facts well, so that the players can make informed decisions, then this is really just expecting the players to guess at a random thing when they don't even know they need to guess.  And, if that directs play, it's Force -- the GM's thumb is on the scale directing a result that the players didn't even know was possible.

Of course, there's lots of ways to avoid that, but 'it's in the notes' in insufficient.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Nagol said:


> The person or group who built/discovered the fiction, obviously.
> 
> Of course there are and they might even have been used here with a subset of players present, but I'm discussing the case where that fictional positioning has already been determined by whatever source.  For example, 6 sessions ago, the group tried to ferret out a secret at court and accidently discovered the identity of the duke's mistress.  Ultimately, the players decided to pursue a different tactic to their goal.  Today a different PC decided to approach and recruit her into the plot against her lover.
> 
> It doesn't matter how it was determined.  If it was created by the GM as part of the 'riddle' or the scenario, as colour, or as part of a (mostly forgotten) group exercise is immaterial.  It isn't force if the GM runs the situation honestly to its potential.  If the game includes an exploratory environment then it isn't force to have things that can be found via exploration that might hurt if not discovered.  It is as much 'force' as a concealed pit trap is 'force' when the PCs move across it.
> 
> Presumably the same prepared fictional positioning determines that.  Could some secret mistresses be swayed or even willing to help overthrow their lovers? Of course!  This one isn't because <the positioning that's been determined>.




Well if it’s already been established that the mistress absolutely will not betray the duke, then a player declaring his PC will try to convince the mistress to betray the duke seems odd. If it happened, the player is either acting on bad faith, or the situation is unclear. 

Or it’s entirely possible I could be missing your point.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> In such an instance, the setting might belong to the GM, but what happens--that's the actual story--would belong to the PCs. The only way the GM can retain ownership is not to allow the PCs to change it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> My own prep rarely includes anything like any maps. It's concerned far more with what has been going on before the PCs arrive, and what is likely to happen in their absence, and usually the consequences of what seem to me to be the most likely PC courses of actions (which are not of course the only things that can happen, but they do serve as something to base other reactions on).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> if it's been mapped, and the PCs have encountered it. If a PC attempts to jump it anyway, it's probably worth making sure the player understands that this isn't some little groove in the ground, but an actual large-scale geographic feature.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I don't think that having the in-fiction reality be more objective necessarily removes player agency--it just adds some burden to the GM that the players know the situation before they act



I think there is a bit of tension between the first and last passages, and the middle ones.

The middle ones - where you set out methods in detail - seem to be about the GM establishing the shared fiction, and the consequences of actions.


----------



## Fenris-77

I think I have a fundamental problem with the notion that the story just belongs to the PCs. The story belongs to all the players, and that includes the GM. The setting and the story are not the same thing at all, so notions of 'retaining ownership' really shouldn't apply.  Admittedly, I'm coming from a more PtFOWH perspective. I can see how some GMs would struggle with ideas about retaining control of 'their' setting though. I can also see how in a heavily pre-plotted campaign the complexion seems different. However, that inability to let go probably indexes a propensity for GM force, and that's a slippery slope.


----------



## pemerton

Fenris-77 said:


> I think I have a fundamental problem with the notion that the story just belongs to the PCs.



My problem with it is that, taken literally, it seems to imply some sort of breaking of the fourth wall; but when I try for some sensible non-literal meaning all I get is _the PCs are at the centre of the action_, which tells me nothing about how the fiction is actually being established in play.


----------



## FrogReaver

Ovinomancer said:


> ...then you're in Force territory and need to be careful about play.  Just the GM writing these notes down (or keeping them in their head) does not turn this into a no Force situation.  Unless the GM foreshadows these facts well, so that the players can make informed decisions, then this is really just expecting the players to guess at a random thing when they don't even know they need to guess.  And, if that directs play, it's Force -- the GM's thumb is on the scale directing a result that the players didn't even know was possible.




I'm just curious and this isn't just to you.  Why is it that posts like these make force sound like something bad that must be avoided (other concepts too) but I'm constantly reminded that no other playstyle is being condemned here and that we are just comparing how different mechanics work in different games?


----------



## FrogReaver

It seems to me that there is a great deal of disagreement around what should be labeled an impossible task in RPG terms.

I think to get to the heart of this situation we need to have two terms.  1.  Established in the shared fiction.  2.  Established in the DM's fiction.  Anything in either of these categories can rightfully be called Established in the fiction (based on what those words naturally mean).

I would argue that the DM having things established in the his fiction that have yet to be introduced into the shared fiction is beneficial to play - or at least a certain kind of play.  Maybe the discussion should shift to also discuss how that benefits play?  I think this discussion will feedback into the impossible task discussion.  That is, if it's okay to have established fiction that hasn't yet been shared then some tasks are going to be impossible which the players may think are possible based on the currently shared fiction.  The downside to this style is it can feel like a bad puzzle.  Let's discuss the upsides for a moment.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> I think I have a fundamental problem with the notion that the story just belongs to the PCs. The story belongs to all the players, and that includes the GM. The setting and the story are not the same thing at all, so notions of 'retaining ownership' really shouldn't apply.  Admittedly, I'm coming from a more PtFOWH perspective. I can see how some GMs would struggle with ideas about retaining control of 'their' setting though. I can also see how in a heavily pre-plotted campaign the complexion seems different. However, that inability to let go probably indexes a propensity for GM force, and that's a slippery slope.




I'll answer this, and I'll try to address the problems @pemerton is having, as well.

In my instance, it's specifically about the PCs being the ones whose decisions shape the direction of the story. So in my Saturday campaign, while The Apostate, The Keeper of Secrets, and The Gleaming Dame all have interests in the party's actions, and the party can additionally turn for help to Barnett or the Cracked Shields or maybe the Primal Atoll, the decisions that drive and shape the story come from Mo, Joybell, Taman, Thneed, Orryk, and Fiona. I phrase it the way I do to remind myself of that--it's awfully easy for me to lapse and take possession of the story through any of those NPCs or groups, and that would be (by my lights) bad GMing. I won't argue with any reasonably similar meaning, though I think @pemerton is missing at least some of my inner context with "the PCs are at the center of the action." (Not that anyone outside my head needs to understand my inner context, of course.) While I don't run pre-plotted campaigns (I rarely prep more than a session in advance) I still have and have had issues with letting go of setting elements.


----------



## Fenris-77

pemerton said:


> My problem with it is that, taken literally, it seems to imply some sort of breaking of the fourth wall; but when I try for some sensible non-literal meaning all I get is _the PCs are at the centre of the action_, which tells me nothing about how the fiction is actually being established in play.



To me it seems fundamentally at odds with some basic concepts of what RPGs are and do. 'Authority' over a story, which I'm reading as doubling for 'ownership' is something that emerges from the back and forth between the players and the GM, regardless of the style employed or table conventions in use. This isn't about agency either IMO, as I think it applies to almost all games, both high and low agency, and from scripted to free play. 

The fourth wall feel there might be part and parcel of needing to examine the meta of the rules that produces that story, and I think in this case that meta is being mostly ignored in favor of conflating 'authority' over the story with 'authority' over characters and their actions. The second is pretty standard fare for RPGs, mostly, but the first is highly contentious IMO. This could just be a product of my reading into @prabe 's post things he wasn't intending of course.


----------



## Fenris-77

@prabe - I think some of the difficulty here is that 'shaping of' and 'ownership of' are very different things. I think it's pretty non-controversial to say that PC actions should shape the story, set next to GM adjudication and reaction to those actions. I think the idea of 'ownership' is a little more problematic.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I think there is a bit of tension between the first and last passages, and the middle ones.
> 
> The middle ones - where you set out methods in detail - seem to be about the GM establishing the shared fiction, and the consequences of actions.




Then I'll try to explain them more fully. This may be another instance where we fail to communicate because our starting points are far enough apart that the same thing looks different to us.




prabe said:


> In such an instance, the setting might belong to the GM, but what happens--that's the actual story--would belong to the PCs. The only way the GM can retain ownership is not to allow the PCs to change it.




So, I've been in groups that did dungeon-crawl-ish adventures effectively backward--we found what was supposed to be the exit and went in through it and jumped the Big Boss while we were fresh, then crawled our way out. If the GM had had us go in through the exit and find Room 1A (or however it was keyed) so we had to encounter the elements of the dungeon in the order he wanted (or at least that the writers expected), that would have been along the lines of not allowing the PCs to own the story.




prabe said:


> I agree that prep can look very different from a keyed map. My own prep rarely includes anything like any maps. It's concerned far more with what has been going on before the PCs arrive, and what is likely to happen in their absence, and usually the consequences of what seem to me to be the most likely PC courses of actions (which are not of course the only things that can happen, but they do serve as something to base other reactions on).




So, yes, I was talking about my own methods, here. I don't map down to the room very often.




prabe said:


> Or, if it's been mapped, and the PCs have encountered it. If a PC attempts to jump it anyway, it's probably worth making sure the player understands that this isn't some little groove in the ground, but an actual large-scale geographic feature. If that's clear and the PC attempts to jump it anyway, the possibility it's an out-of-game problem starts to rear its head.




If you're seeing tension between my talking about "if it's been mapped" here and my comments about my own approach to (barely) mapping, that's probably because I was talking more broadly, to include the possibility that the GM might map in that sort of detail. The mention of the PCs having encountered it previously was intended to convey that it was already an established fact in the fiction.




prabe said:


> Basing the fiction on the outcome of the roll seems eminently appropriate for the games you've shared play examples for, but I don't think that having the in-fiction reality be more objective necessarily removes player agency--it just adds some burden to the GM that the players know the situation before they act (or at least, they know that's how the game is being run). If I'm running a mystery that I've prepped (where I know at least what the core situation is, if not all the details) and I run it honestly--I answer the PCs' questions forthrightly, skipping between player skill (roleplay) and character skill (Ability Checks, in 5E) as needed--I don't think I'm removing the possibility of player or character agency. It's plausible-shading-to-probable that you disagree.




So, I'm guessing the tension you see between this and the first thing you quoted comes to this: You think there's a big difference in player agency between (A) the PC's skill check determines whether the player gets to declare [FACT] and (B) the PC's skill check determines whether the GM reveals [FACT]; I don't.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> @prabe - I think some of the difficulty here is that 'shaping of' and 'ownership of' are very different things. I think it's pretty non-controversial to say that PC actions should shape the story, set next to GM adjudication and reaction to those actions. I think the idea of 'ownership' is a little more problematic.




That's reasonable-ish. My thinking, unpacked a little more: The players own the PCs; the GM owns the setting (to include all places and NPCs and history). The PCs own the story; nothing that the GM owns does. Even the PCs' opposition is really part of the PCs' story (note the way the possessives point). I suspect it's probably indicative of my thinking that in my email missives to the players I always describe myself as DMing for them.


----------



## Ovinomancer

FrogReaver said:


> I'm just curious and this isn't just to you.  Why is it that posts like these make force sound like something bad that must be avoided (other concepts too) but I'm constantly reminded that no other playstyle is being condemned here and that we are just comparing how different mechanics work in different games?



Force is just a tool in the box.  Some games live by it, some avoid it.  It's pretty neutral by itself.  However, it's a tool that's easily abused, and, in the worst cases, is the tool than enables very dysfunctional gameplay (like hard railroads).  The post I responded to wasn't about bad gaming or a criticism of a playstyle, but instead being very clear that the tool being used in that situation was Force, specifically how it was Force where a pit trap usually isn't.

D&D uses Force, so I can see how you'd think it's a criticism of D&D, or your playstyle, or whatever.  It's not.  I'm prepping a 5e game for tonight right now, one we haven't played in a few months due to life and the current crazy (I got sick, other people had to take care of ill parents, I game with some police officers who haven't had much free time lately, you know, life).  I'm going heavy on Force, at least at the start, because I need to re-establish the current conflicts as they were left and that setting and themes of the game, again.  So, I don't have a problem with Force.  If anything, my plans for kicking things back off could be considered a railroad -- at least to start.  After that, after I've re-established the fictional situation again, then I'll relax back into the much more PC directed play I prefer, but, as it's D&D, Force is always in my toolbox.

On the other hand, if one of my players has to bail due to being on call, then I have Blades in the Dark standing by.  We haven't played that in longer, but it kicks off with less.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> So, I'm guessing the tension you see between this and the first thing you quoted comes to this: You think there's a big difference in player agency between (A) the PC's skill check determines whether the player gets to declare [FACT] and (B) the PC's skill check determines whether the GM reveals [FACT]; I don't.




This is an excellent summation, but, like all summations, it's hiding a good bit of nuance.  Like that the action declarations are different between these two, so there's some room to hide some agency there, and that the FACTs are different between A and B, so there's some room for agency to be hiding there.  However, overall, that's a great way to put the functional differences between games like PbtA and D&D.


----------



## Fenris-77

prabe said:


> That's reasonable-ish. My thinking, unpacked a little more: The players own the PCs; the GM owns the setting (to include all places and NPCs and history). The PCs own the story; nothing that the GM owns does. Even the PCs' opposition is really part of the PCs' story (note the way the possessives point). I suspect it's probably indicative of my thinking that in my email missives to the players I always describe myself as DMing for them.



Hmm. For my games I don't think I'd agree that I own the setting. If the players aren't helping to shape, populate, and impact the setting I've probably done something wrong. Other games are more liken that though, and in those instances you're probably closer to the mark. 

I'm really not sure what you're indexing when you use the word 'own' here in reference to the story. The players don't produce any story absent the GM, so the notion that they own it seems ... odd to me. The narrative, if that's what you mean by story, is produced though the oscillating movement of declaration-result between the players and the GM. I would agree with your statement, at least for myself, that I GM 'for the players' but that doesn't lead me to 'they own the story' as it seems to for you.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> This is an excellent summation, but, like all summations, it's hiding a good bit of nuance.  Like that the action declarations are different between these two, so there's some room to hide some agency there, and that the FACTs are different between A and B, so there's some room for agency to be hiding there.  However, overall, that's a great way to put the functional differences between games like PbtA and D&D.




I dunno if the FACT in A is automatically going to be different from the FACT in B--that depends a whole lot on context, I think--but I'll agree that it's too short and too pithy to cover much nuance, and that there's at least a difference in kind of agency between them. As I said, though, I don't think there's a big difference.


----------



## prabe

Fenris-77 said:


> I'm really not sure what you're indexing when you use the word 'own' here in reference to the story. The players don't produce any story absent the GM, so the notion that they own it seems ... odd to me. The narrative, if that's what you mean by story, is produced though the oscillating movement of declaration-result between the players and the GM. I would agree with your statement, at least for myself, that I GM 'for the players' but that doesn't lead me to 'they own the story' as it seems to for you.




What I'm indexing, I think is that the story belongs to the PCs. It's their story. It's not (to use my previous example) The Apostate's story, or the Cracked Shields' story--though they have their own stories, which are mine to work out, where they don't intersect with the PCs. As I said, my phrasing is a way to tell myself whom the story belongs to, a warning not to make it about the NPCs.


----------



## Lanefan

prabe said:


> What I'm indexing, I think is that the story belongs to the PCs. It's their story. It's not (to use my previous example) The Apostate's story, or the Cracked Shields' story--though they have their own stories, which are mine to work out, where they don't intersect with the PCs. As I said, my phrasing is a way to tell myself whom the story belongs to, a warning not to make it about the NPCs.



Though it would seem clear that you still have to work out the NPCs' story, even if to no more extent than some virtual scrap notes in your head, such that you know the circumstances at whatever time said story re-intersects with the PCs' story in the future.

An example from my own campaign: a few in-game years ago various PC groups had dealings with a land that's been plunged into a 5-way civil war*, and then left for other places.  Recently a group returned there, which meant I-as-DM needed to have some idea about how that civil war had progressed in the meantime so I could, for example, tell the players whose troops they were meeting where and give coherent and consistent answers when the PCs asked those troops for news.

* - caused by the PCs' actions: they killed the long-time Emperor, leaving a power vacuum in a generally-very-nasty realm.


----------



## prabe

Lanefan said:


> Though it would seem clear that you still have to work out the NPCs' story, even if to no more extent than some virtual scrap notes in your head, such that you know the circumstances at whatever time said story re-intersects with the PCs' story in the future.




Oh, absolutely, though (A) it doesn't change that the campaign's story is about the PCs and (B) it's maybe best done when you know the PCs' story, so you know when they intersect again. So, in the case of the example I snipped, it'd be reasonable not to work out the progression of that civil war until your PCs went back there (any set of PCs, I think, whether it's the PCs that killed the emperor or other PCs).

The Cracked Shields, for instance, have been invited to the PCs' estate--and they're probably going to arrive soon. The PCs aren't there, but that doesn't need to make trouble for their castellan (and I haven't laid any foundation for it to, so it very probably won't).


----------



## Hriston

pemerton said:


> @Hriston, nice example! It correlates pretty closely to examples in Burning Wheel how-to-play text as well as the actual play example I posted. And I would definitely consider it to be an example of player agency over the fiction. Even though the action failed, the player's framing of the action declaration played a big role in shaping that failure consequence.
> 
> And reflecting further on that: In these sorts of resolution contexts it's interesting to think about how explicit the GM needs to be about the stakes of failure. BW "officially" advocates full explicitness every time but Luke Crane (the designer) has said that in his own games he sometimes lets the failure consequences remain implicit in the situation.
> 
> I vary in my approach depending on what I feel is implicit, whether I think going explicit will increase tension or defuse it because of the "meta" intrusion, etc. Explicitness seems the surest way to guarantee player agency but that may not be the only desideratum in a given moment of play. On the other hand, if a failure consequence catches the player by surprise - ie they didn't see it as implicit in the fiction - then that can be an "oops" moment as a GM!



I try to be explicit about the stakes of a check because I feel it puts tension on the die roll. In a case like this, I suppose the "meta" intrusion you speak of can come in the form of a feeling that the fiction exists in a quantum state, that the result of the check is causing one thing or the other to happen in the fiction. So, in my example, it would be the idea that the player is trying to find out the right answer and that the result of the check determines what the answer is, revealing thereby that until the check, there was no "right" answer. The cognitive hurdle for me in laying this type of concern aside was the realization that the check is how we find out what happened. So the druid's failure isn't in the moment of recall. He remembers the "right" answer either way in that he perfectly remembers what his observations revealed to him. Neither was his failure in the moment of observation. What his observations about the toads told him was correct either way. The druid's failure was actually in making the decision to track the toads so late in the day without the full party, since it was revealed by the check that he should have known better, even though the player was blameless because he didn't have the relevant information until he had made the declaration to find out.


----------



## pemerton

FrogReaver said:


> Why is it that posts like these make force sound like something bad that must be avoided (other concepts too) but I'm constantly reminded that no other playstyle is being condemned here and that we are just comparing how different mechanics work in different games?





FrogReaver said:


> I think to get to the heart of this situation we need to have two terms.  1.  Established in the shared fiction.  2.  Established in the DM's fiction.  Anything in either of these categories can rightfully be called Established in the fiction (based on what those words naturally mean).
> 
> I would argue that the DM having things established in the his fiction that have yet to be introduced into the shared fiction is beneficial to play - or at least a certain kind of play.  Maybe the discussion should shift to also discuss how that benefits play?



These two posts go together.

If you go back through this thread you'll find various posters asserting that _the GM havng things established in the ficiton that have yet to be introduced into the shared fiction _does not have any implications for player agency in respect of the shared fiction.

But that claim clearly cannot be true. T_he GM havng things established in the ficiton that have yet to be introduced into the shared fiction _only becomes relevant to play if that stuff is used to frame situations, or adjudicate fictional positioning, wthout regard to what the player(s) want to be the case. Which is to say it's an _alternative _to, not a form of, player agency in respect of the shared fiction.

If you go back upthread you will see that there are posters who clearly recognise that and talk about its possible utility for play. @Campbell is one of them.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> I've been in groups that did dungeon-crawl-ish adventures effectively backward--we found what was supposed to be the exit and went in through it and jumped the Big Boss while we were fresh, then crawled our way out. If the GM had had us go in through the exit and find Room 1A (or however it was keyed) so we had to encounter the elements of the dungeon in the order he wanted (or at least that the writers expected), that would have been along the lines of not allowing the PCs to own the story.



OK, thanks for this example.

This is not what I was expecting as an example of the PCs (players?) "owning" the story.

If the finding of the "exit" was pure coincidence then it seems like a more-or-less random tweak to the sequence of events.

In a dungeon like the Caves of Chaos I think it's meant to be open to multiple ways of entering and engaging it - there is no opening that is "supposed to be the exit" - and so what you describe would seem to be the default. But that's not the sort of thing I have i mind when talking about player agency over the shared fiction.



prabe said:


> I'm guessing the tension you see between this and the first thing you quoted comes to this: You think there's a big difference in player agency between (A) the PC's skill check determines whether the player gets to declare [FACT] and (B) the PC's skill check determines whether the GM reveals [FACT]; I don't.



I thikn the difference is that in one the player has a chance of establishing the shared fiction, and in the other that is the GM. That seems to be a difference in agency. Whether or not it's _big _I don't know, but I'm not sure how it can be irrelevant to a discussion about player agency over the content of the shared fiction.


----------



## Psikerlord#

To answer the OP - I think the answer is very obvious - if they've failed to escape, those two PCs get executed. Roll up new PCs! Nothing wrong with that whatsoever. Anything else and the players know you'll do anything to save their PCs to preserve them, which is fatal to good gameplay (and ultimately player interest).


----------



## Jd Smith1

prabe said:


> What I'm indexing, I think is that the story belongs to the PCs. It's their story.




I disagree. The story is of the PCs' deeds and the world around them, and if the PCs bugger it up, that's how the story goes.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> OK, thanks for this example.
> 
> This is not what I was expecting as an example of the PCs (players?) "owning" the story.
> 
> If the finding of the "exit" was pure coincidence then it seems like a more-or-less random tweak to the sequence of events.




There was one group that did it enough that I'm reluctant to say it was consistently coincidental. There was almost certainly some interaction going on between the writers of those adventures and the minds of the players. While I can't say years later whether there was intent, I do remember it being a pattern.



pemerton said:


> In a dungeon like the Caves of Chaos I think it's meant to be open to multiple ways of entering and engaging it - there is no opening that is "supposed to be the exit" - and so what you describe would seem to be the default. But that's not the sort of thing I have i mind when talking about player agency over the shared fiction.




This was in one of Paizo's Adventure Paths, and these dungeon-ish sections had clear Big Bosses. My point is that our decisions mattered, at least in deciding the order of events--in principle it might have been possible to slip out after killing the Bosses, but I remember there being at least one group (metagame) decision that that would have been long-term detrimental (earning fewer XP than expected).



pemerton said:


> I thikn the difference is that in one the player has a chance of establishing the shared fiction, and in the other that is the GM. That seems to be a difference in agency. Whether or not it's _big _I don't know, but I'm not sure how it can be irrelevant to a discussion about player agency over the content of the shared fiction.




I think that the player whose action resolution reveals a GM-determined fact still has agency over the content of the fiction, including their decision to attempt that action and their decisions and actions afterward. In many games (at least the ones I GM) where the GM determines facts to be revealed, the PCs choose which goal/s they are pursuing. It seems to me that you believe that if a player cannot declare facts, they have no agency over the fiction; I disagree. Having read through Blades in the Dark and Apocalypse World, I think I'd feel as though I had more agency as a player in a well-run game of D&D 5E than either, which I realize is practically heresy (and note that it's not based on actual play experience).


----------



## prabe

Jd Smith1 said:


> I disagree. The story is of the PCs' deeds and the world around them, and if the PCs bugger it up, that's how the story goes.




The world around the PCs is the setting. Their actions make the story. Their actions are theirs, and so is the story. It's possible to screw up your story, in the same way it's possible to screw up your life. I suspect we end up in similar places coming from different angles, which means I'm not sure we disagree as much as you maybe think we do.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> I think that the player whose action resolution reveals a GM-determined fact still has agency over the content of the fiction, including their decision to attempt that action and their decisions and actions afterward.



Choosing whether or not to look in the box doesn't really give me agency over what's in the box.



prabe said:


> It seems to me that you believe that if a player cannot declare facts, they have no agency over the fiction



No. I've repeatedly referred to action resolution. _I look for a secret door - do I find one? I strike the orc - do I kill it?_ _I run across country - do I make it to safety?_ These are not "declrations of facts". They are action declarations which the system can resolve.



prabe said:


> Having read through Blades in the Dark and Apocalypse World, I think I'd feel as though I had more agency as a player in a well-run game of D&D 5E than eithe



I can't comment on BitD, but this is a very odd thing to say about Apocalypse World. AW has none of the touchpoints you've mentioned earlier in this thread - nothing analogous to a compel, no player "declarations of facts", and very few "meta" powers (I did a count a little while ago and I think it was less than 10% of player moves - and you can just not pick those ones).

What have you got in mind?


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> Choosing whether or not to look in the box doesn't really give me agency over what's in the box.




The way I see it, your character never had agency over what's in the box, whoever has narrative authority over it.



pemerton said:


> No. I've repeatedly referred to action resolution. _I look for a secret door - do I find one? I strike the orc - do I kill it?_ _I run across country - do I make it to safety?_ These are not "declrations of facts". They are action declarations which the system can resolve.




And it can be understood that in a system like Burning Wheel--your play example with the feather, IIRC--the player would have been able to declare facts (the characteristics or traits, or whatever, of the feather) if the resolution had gone his way. You have brought that up as an example of player agency, and you have specifically said that if the action resolution reveals facts the GM makes up (or has made up before and written down) then the player has no (or at least less) agency.



pemerton said:


> I can't comment on BitD, but this is a very odd thing to say about Apocalypse World. AW has none of the touchpoints you've mentioned earlier in this thread - nothing analogous to a compel, no player "declarations of facts", and very few "meta" powers (I did a count a little while ago and I think it was less than 10% of player moves - and you can just not pick those ones).
> 
> What have you got in mind?




Since you're more familiar with Apocalypse World, and I've read 1E cover-to-cover twice in the last four days, I'll stick with that one. Seems as though that'll be a better conversation. I'll admit again that I haven't played the game, so I'm going by the rules and the play examples therein; I'm willing to admit things might work differently around an actual table. Anything I say is opinion and should not be taken as judging anyone for enjoying the game, or preferring that playstyle: I am genuinely happy that people enjoy the game.

There are a number of instances in the play examples that at least look like refusing to honor success on the rolls, and if those are the examples in the book I have to presume a GM might think it was OK to not honor success or even worse (and this also shows up in the play examples) punish a character for succeeding.

There doesn't seem to be much in the way of long-term accomplishments available to the PCs. It wouldn't feel to me as though I had agency if there wasn't something I could achieve. Survival doesn't feel like an accomplishment, which is why I've never been interested in Zombie Apocalypse RPGs, even when one of the guys I gamed with a lot adored them and always wanted to run them.

Many of the GM moves seem based as much around GM whim as around any sort of actual consequential or causal logic, and the idea that you're always supposed to be setting up at least the possibility of a harder move seems to contradict the idea of the GM not-planning, and Playing to Find Out What Happens--at least to contradict that as much as a GM having an idea of what's (probably, based on knowing how these players are playing their characters) going to happen in a given session or story arc.

The Hx mechanics seem as though they give players handles (or levers, or some other metaphor if you want) they can use to usurp control of another player's character. As you can probably imagine, I'm not a fan of this. This might or might not have registered as "meta" for you, but meta or not doesn't change my feelings about it.

My feeling about the Hx mechanics jibes with my sense that the game kinda instructs the GM to pit the PCs against each other. All the references to PC-NPC-PC triangles, for instance. I am not and I have never been any sort of fan of PvP. My preference, still/again not judging people.

I'm not a big fan of the stress on simplistic motivations for NPCs. Maybe keeping things so simple makes it easier to keep all the named people straight.

Overall, the game seems perfectly willing to throw the PCs into a meatgrinder if there's a good story there. I'd rather have the PCs go into the meatgrinder on their own for their own reasons, I think.

Also, one pedantic thing. The line "There are no status quos in Apocalypse World" keeps appearing, and I don't believe the writer knows what "status quo" means. There's always a status quo. It might not be stable--what the writer is trying to say--but it's always there.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> Choosing whether or not to look in the box doesn't really give me agency over what's in the box.



Nor should it, IMO.  Your agency is the ability to choose to look in the box or not, and by extension to thus (at least for your part) determine whether what's in the box is ever found.

The contents of the box (and the box itself) are part of the setting, which is the GM's purview.

Declaring as an action "I (try to) open the box" can really only resolve three ways - you open the box, you don't open the box, or (much less common) you drop the box and maybe shatter it and-or its contents.

What the box contains is not part of any action resolution.  Instead, it falls under GM narration.  Which means declaring "I (try to) open the box in hopes the Crown of Revel is inside" still only has the same three outcomes: open box, closed box, or broken box.  That the player mentions the Crown of Revel doesn't change whether the Crown is inside or not...unless you want to take control over the setting away from the GM, in which case why bother having a GM other than as meeting facilitator and (usually IMO) host.


----------



## Manbearcat

prabe said:


> 1 - There are a number of instances in the play examples that at least look like refusing to honor success on the rolls, and if those are the examples in the book I have to presume a GM might think it was OK to not honor success or even worse (and this also shows up in the play examples) punish a character for succeeding.
> 
> 2 - Many of the GM moves seem based as much around GM whim as around any sort of actual consequential or causal logic, and the idea that you're always supposed to be setting up at least the possibility of a harder move seems to contradict the idea of the GM not-planning, and Playing to Find Out What Happens--at least to contradict that as much as a GM having an idea of what's (probably, based on knowing how these players are playing their characters) going to happen in a given session or story arc.




I've numbered these for reference.

Lets discuss one example of each of these from Apocalypse World.  I have a pretty strong guess as to what is happening here (it likely has to do with discretizing component parts and examining them in isolation rather than integration of the whole), but lets dig into it to be sure.

If you would, cite a page for both 1 and 2 that provoked you toward this takeaway and then share the machinery of the provocation.


----------



## FrogReaver

pemerton said:


> If you go back through this thread you'll find various posters asserting that _the GM havng things established in the ficiton that have yet to be introduced into the shared fiction _does not have any implications for player agency in respect of the shared fiction.
> 
> But that claim clearly cannot be true. T_he GM havng things established in the ficiton that have yet to be introduced into the shared fiction _only becomes relevant to play if that stuff is used to frame situations, or adjudicate fictional positioning, wthout regard to what the player(s) want to be the case. Which is to say it's an _alternative _to, not a form of, player agency in respect of the shared fiction.




I think that for a player to have agency in respect of the shared fiction he doesn't need to have agency in respect of the shared fiction for every fictional situation that arises.

However, even in instances where you would say there is a lack of agency over the shared fiction, I'd say that there is more agency in respect of the shared fiction than you are willing to admit.  Any attempted character action does exert agency over the shared fiction.  The player has single handedly introduced a true proposition into the share fiction - my character attempts to do X.  That is agency over the shared fiction, even if it is just a tincy incy bit of agency, it's there.


----------



## pemerton

FrogReaver said:


> Any attempted character action does exert agency over the shared fiction.  The player has single handedly introduced a true proposition into the share fiction - my character attempts to do X.  That is agency over the shared fiction, even if it is just a tincy incy bit of agency, it's there.



I've already explained in this thread why I don't find this a very significant point. Because having this sort of agency is the default for a player to be actually participating in a RPG.



Lanefan said:


> Nor should it, IMO.  Your agency is the ability to choose to look in the box or not, and by extension to thus (at least for your part) determine whether what's in the box is ever found.
> 
> The contents of the box (and the box itself) are part of the setting, which is the GM's purview.



One might have different views about how to resolve a declared action, but the preference doesn't affect the analysis: you are saying that, in thie case, the player does not have agency over the fiction beyond _I look in the box_ or _I don't_. It is the GM who decides what actually happens next eg _OK, you see a severed head in there!_ or <GM thinks to self> _They didn't look in the box, so they won't have the ring that was in their that opens the secret door in the basement_.



prabe said:


> The way I see it, your character never had agency over what's in the box, whoever has narrative authority over it.



Why are you talking about _the character_? I'm talking about _whether or not the player has agency in respect of the shared fiction_. If you're saying _No they don't and that's fine_, well OK. But can we at least get the analysis clear?



Lanefan said:


> Declaring as an action "I (try to) open the box" can really only resolve three ways - you open the box, you don't open the box, or (much less common) you drop the box and maybe shatter it and-or its contents.
> 
> What the box contains is not part of any action resolution.  Instead, it falls under GM narration.  Which means declaring "I (try to) open the box in hopes the Crown of Revel is inside" still only has the same three outcomes: open box, closed box, or broken box.  That the player mentions the Crown of Revel doesn't change whether the Crown is inside or not...unless you want to take control over the setting away from the GM, in which case why bother having a GM other than as meeting facilitator and (usually IMO) host.



This is just nonsense.

Here's the action declaration: _I look in the box for the Crown of Revel_. Here's the role of the GM: To narrate what happens if the check fails. And to provide framing more generally.

It's not mysterious.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> Since you're more familiar with Apocalypse World, and I've read 1E cover-to-cover twice in the last four days, I'll stick with that one. Seems as though that'll be a better conversation. I'll admit again that I haven't played the game, so I'm going by the rules and the play examples therein; I'm willing to admit things might work differently around an actual table. Anything I say is opinion and should not be taken as judging anyone for enjoying the game, or preferring that playstyle: I am genuinely happy that people enjoy the game.
> 
> There are a number of instances in the play examples that at least look like refusing to honor success on the rolls, and if those are the examples in the book I have to presume a GM might think it was OK to not honor success or even worse (and this also shows up in the play examples) punish a character for succeeding.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Many of the GM moves seem based as much around GM whim as around any sort of actual consequential or causal logic, and the idea that you're always supposed to be setting up at least the possibility of a harder move seems to contradict the idea of the GM not-planning, and Playing to Find Out What Happens--at least to contradict that as much as a GM having an idea of what's (probably, based on knowing how these players are playing their characters) going to happen in a given session or story arc.



I assume you're talking about the example of Marie the brainer. What do you see as "success not being honoured"?

And what do you see as "whim"?


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> One might have different views about how to resolve a declared action, but the preference doesn't affect the analysis: you are saying that, in thie case, the player does not have agency over the fiction beyond _I look in the box_ or _I don't_. It is the GM who decides what actually happens next eg _OK, you see a severed head in there!_ or <GM thinks to self> _They didn't look in the box, so they won't have the ring that was in their that opens the secret door in the basement_.



The GM sets the scene - which includes the box and its contents (if any) - ahead of time.  Think of the box and its contents (if any) as analagous to a stage prop, with the only difference being that the scene-setter has no way of knowing in advance how or even if this prop will be interacted with by the actors (players, through their PCs).

A stage prop is either put on stage before the scene begins, or is put into an actor's hand to be carried on to the stage as part of the role being played.



> Why are you talking about _the character_? I'm talking about _whether or not the player has agency in respect of the shared fiction_. If you're saying _No they don't and that's fine_, well OK. But can we at least get the analysis clear?



Sorry, said character when I meant player; but keep in mind I'm trying to look at this as far as possible from an in-fiction viewpoint: how does the *character* see it. 

Why?  Because that's how the game world IMO should be viewed: through the eyes of the character.

Yes, stuff has to be done at the table in order for this to happen, but that stuff IMO should revolve around getting the player's imagination of the setting and scene and the character's perception of it into as close to complete agreement as possible.



> This is just nonsense.
> 
> Here's the action declaration: _I look in the box for the Crown of Revel_. Here's the role of the GM: To narrate what happens if the check fails. And to provide framing more generally.
> 
> It's not mysterious.



The role of the GM is to narrate what happens in terms of what the PCs perceive.  If the box can easily be opened the GM narrates what's inside based on what she already knows is (or isn't) there.  If the box can't easily be opened there's a check to see if the PC can open it; on success (or on the box being broken, possibly) the GM narrates what's inside, and on failure the GM narrates that the box remains closed (or, perhaps, has been broken).

And all the while the GM knows where the Crown of Revel is.  Maybe it is in the box being opened; in which case it's paydirt for the PC.  And maybe it isn't.

As you say, it's not mysterious. The GM controls all aspects of the setting, including the props - and their locations.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> Why are you talking about _the character_? I'm talking about _whether or not the player has agency in respect of the shared fiction_. If you're saying _No they don't and that's fine_, well OK. But can we at least get the analysis clear?




Because the character is the means through which the player shapes or changes--or whatever verb you care to use--the story. Changing the story some other way doesn't feel to me like agency--it feels like some sort of authorship or narrative authority.



pemerton said:


> Here's the action declaration: _I look in the box for the Crown of Revel_. Here's the role of the GM: To narrate what happens if the check fails. And to provide framing more generally.
> 
> It's not mysterious.




And it's clear that you and @Lanefan would interpret and resolve this declaration differently. You would interpret it as stating what the PC hopes to find and resolve it that if the check succeeds, they find it. @Lanefan would interpret it as a check to open the box, and the "for the Crown of Revel" is why; if the check succeeds the box is opened, but the Crown of Revel is only there if it would be there. I'd probably interpret it roughly the same way @Lanefan would, though I suspect I'd be more generous about whether they'd find the Crown of Revel--If they're in the right room it's certain; if they're in the right building, it's possible--but I'm less about the granular details than he is. I don't think either of you is wrong, here.


----------



## Fenris-77

Well, not *all* aspects of the setting, at least not in all games._ Apocalypse World_, for instance, encourages the GM to look to the players for setting detail on a regular basis. Not crowns in boxes maybe, but setting details all the same. I do the same in most games, including D&D. It gives me a chance to play off player ideas for stuff. 

The crown in the example above is something a little different, a hidden detail might be the right word, and different games lean into prep and hidden detail to very different degrees. D&D leans into it heavily, while Apocalypse World does not.  That said, in neither case does a player get to dictate the location of the crown. Some games might support that particular kind of narrative authority for a player, but not the games we've been talking about so far. Sometimes I don't know the exact location of the crown-in-a-box either. I might know that it's at the Dukes summer house, and I might know that it's probably still sealed inside the box that prevents people from divining it's location, but I might not know exactly where. I might use a particularly good search roll, or even a failure of some kind to introduce the box at an appropriately dramatic moment. I usually have a fall back position though. Like, if nothing else happens, the box can be found in the armoire in the Duke's bedroom. That's assuming that the crown is something the party was searching for in the first place, of course. I know some people will cry illusionism here, but it's really not.


----------



## prabe

Manbearcat said:


> I've numbered these for reference.
> 
> 1 - There are a number of instances in the play examples that at least look like refusing to honor success on the rolls, and if those are the examples in the book I have to presume a GM might think it was OK to not honor success or even worse (and this also shows up in the play examples) punish a character for succeeding.
> 
> 2 - Many of the GM moves seem based as much around GM whim as around any sort of actual consequential or causal logic, and the idea that you're always supposed to be setting up at least the possibility of a harder move seems to contradict the idea of the GM not-planning, and Playing to Find Out What Happens--at least to contradict that as much as a GM having an idea of what's (probably, based on knowing how these players are playing their characters) going to happen in a given session or story arc.
> 
> Lets discuss one example of each of these from Apocalypse World.  I have a pretty strong guess as to what is happening here (it likely has to do with discretizing component parts and examining them in isolation rather than integration of the whole), but lets dig into it to be sure.
> 
> If you would, cite a page for both 1 and 2 that provoked you toward this takeaway and then share the machinery of the provocation.






pemerton said:


> I assume you're talking about the example of Marie the brainer. What do you see as "success not being honoured"?
> 
> And what do you see as "whim"?




It'll be far easier for me to reply to both these at once, so ... that's what I'm doing. This isn't an attack (or even really a defense) but I notice and find it interesting that you both picked up on the same two things. In a way, I'm glad, because it makes it easier to respond to both of you at once, both logisitically and psychologically. @Manbearcat I honestly do not understand what you mean by "machinery of provocation" in this context, but I'll try to explain my reasoning and if that's not what you're looking for we can figure out what words will convey what you want to me?

Yes, the primary example of not honoring success is, as @pemerton deduced, the play example of Marie the Brainer, from the section "Rules of Play: Moves Snowball" which my pdf shows as being page 152 of the MC's Playbook (from the 1E stuff available for free, the file says it's 1E-1up). What I see as "success not being honored" is that the PC managed a full hit--a 10 on the roll--and didn't even get part of the result they were looking for. There's the description of when the same character sends people out to bring back Joe's Girl and they break her in the bringing back, but there's no action resolution described there, just the GM being a dick. Heck, you could argue it's a principle of the game--Respond with fuckery and intermittent rewards; if success isn't always going to succeed, where's the agency?

An example of GM move demonstrating planning? "Announce future badness." (I'm looking at "Your Moves" on page 116 of the same pdf.) If it's going to be bad in the future you're kinda saying there's nothing the PCs can do about it. I'm not saying it's bad, and I'm not saying there's more Force in it than there is in, say, D&D 5E; I'm saying it's the same.


----------



## Campbell

A couple things :

Apocalypse World does not utilize intent. When you do something that triggers the move it happens. The rules tell us what happens. They do not tell us if you achieved your intent. 

Much like *go aggro *which it is based on *direct-brain whisper projection *represents a threat to do violence when your character is fully committed to do so. On a 10+ the person you are threatening gets a split second to either give in or force your hand and suck it up (meaning violence happens). In this Marie is saying _follow me _with an implied _or else_. They choose _the else_.  That is what success means in this instance.

The reason you* announce future badness* is so players have an opportunity to do something about it. The MC in Apocalypse World is basically sparring with the players. You make threats and follow through based on the fiction when things do not go their way. You should have a pretty good idea about the sort of consequences that are possible. Now the GM does have the latitude to certain things about the way things go down when you roll a 6-. It's not really a game about micro-fiction. We kind of just hit the highlights.

If you look at the MC moves and assume an MC is just using them as their whims dictate I can see how you could draw the conclusion that it is a game that is highly susceptible to GM Force. Doing that is literally against the rules though. The game provides the GM/MC with tremendous latitude, but only to do certain things. Your agenda, the things you always say, and your principles are meant to be binding. They are like rules.

I do agree that games that resolve player intent (Burning Wheel, Blades in the Dark) rather than tell you what happens (Apocalypse World, D&D spells/combat) have a higher amount of player agency over the shared fiction. I have a fairly strong preference for games that tells you what happens despite this. In a future post I will go into why.


----------



## prabe

Campbell said:


> Apocalypse World does not utilize intent. When you do something that triggers the move it happens. The rules tell us what happens. They do not tell us if you achieved your intent.




That's an interesting distinction. I've always figured that what you were trying to accomplish matters, and should have some bearing on adjudication.



Campbell said:


> Much like *go aggro *which it is based on *direct-brain whisper projection *represents a threat to do violence when your character is fully committed to do so. On a 10+ the person you are threatening gets a split second to either give in or force your hand and suck it up (meaning violence happens). In this Marie is saying _follow me _with an implied _or else_. They choose _the else_.  That is what success means in this instance.
> 
> If you look at the MC moves and assume an MC is just using them as their whims dictate I can see how you could draw the conclusion that it is a game that is highly susceptible to GM Force. Doing that is literally against the rules though. The game provides the GM/MC with tremendous latitude, but only to do certain things. Your agenda, the things you always say, and your principles are meant to be binding. They are like rules.




Fair enough. In the case of Marie the Brainer it still looks like "gotcha" play and the DM being a dick. (The former of which is specifically called out as against the GM's Agenda.) I realize it's an example of play, but there's no real indication of why Isle would choose "the else" in this instance, and it doesn't seem as though Marie's player felt there was any reason to expect it.

Apocalypse World makes a big deal of its agenda and its principles and it says it tightly constrains the GM, but reading it from the outside, more than little skeptically, none of those things seems to be more than a suggestion. The Agenda, for instance, is pretty much the GM's job in any game, any campaign, and many of the Principles aren't bad advice, either. However, the Principles include "Respond with fuckery and intermittent rewards" which sounds to me an awful lot like the opposite of allowing the players/characters to have agency. (Maybe because "intermittent" is such a bad word in my previous line of work.) In the breakdown of "Sometimes, disclaim decision-making" there are suggestions for what amount to rationalizing your decisions, which is kinda the opposite of not-deciding.

I know from having had these sorts of discussions about other games that an outsider (defined as someone who doesn't like and/or play the game in question) pointing out that the game doesn't look all that different from other games, looking at the rules, rarely goes over well. It rarely works out well when these sorts of opinions come from someone who's played the game, either. I'm genuinely not trying to convince anyone that their experiences are wrong--if in your experience Apocalypse World never involves GM Force, I absolutely do not doubt you--I'm just attempting to answer the questions of what I saw that looked the way they did.


----------



## Campbell

@prabe

There were several people who remarked that the way Apocalypse World instructed you to run the game was not novel - that they had been doing so all along. In the context of roleplaying game design I think it was fairly novel to see it enumerated in text. The agenda and principles it lays out are almost directly opposed to established wisdom enumerated in games like AD&D Second Edition, Vampire - The Masquerade, Legend of the Five Rings, et al. What little direction Fifth Edition provides does not point to that type of agenda. It is not the agenda of Burning Wheel. It is not the agenda of B/X.

Here's what Apocalypse World has to say about how to read it's text:


			
				 Apocalypse World Second Edition said:
			
		

> That’s you, the MC, Apocalypse World’s GM.
> 
> There are a million ways to GM games; Apocalypse World calls for one way in particular. This chapter is it. Follow these as rules. The whole rest of the
> game is built upon this.




It's pretty explicit that it is offering instruction rather than advice. Some people will always assume that they know how to play and run roleplaying games and pretty much ignore the text. I am pretty much not interesting in playing any game with that sort of person. Besides if instruction on how to play the game is taken as mere guidelines we might as well give up on game design as it pertains to roleplaying games. In that case we are all pretty much playing one game with different coats of paint. I find that beyond boring.

I think what these enumerated agenda, principles, et al. do is set expectations for play. If I am a player in an Apocalypse World game and I think the GM is not acting being a fan of the player's characters during or after the session it is socially acceptable to bring that up. A year or so ago I was in a Blades in the Dark game that I initially enjoyed, but could tell based on the way the GM was adjudicating consequences that and setting position/effect that they were pulling for certain outcomes mostly to deliver a level of power fantasy for the other players. I was able to have a fruitful discussion about play expectations. Ultimately that GM opted to let everyone know they were basically hacking the game and I stepped out.

That's the other thing. When the machinery of play is transparent it becomes really easy to tell when GM Force is being applied. Because there is no hidden layer of rules that players are not privy too there is nothing to hide behind. Any game that has a meaningful GM role is going to provide them with enough latitude to exert pressure towards certain outcomes if they run a game without discipline. Stripping away that obfuscating layer makes it hard to apply GM Force in an artful (deceptive) manner.

The final thing is that the rules will fight you when you try. The ability of a player in Apocalypse World to get real actionable information about what is going on in the fiction can not be overstated. You have no ability to change target numbers or fudge dice. You are bound by player moves.

So the most common issue I see in Powered by the Apocalypse games are GMs being too soft. A common refrain at our tables is "That was your hard move?"

Note: Not trying to convince you it is the game for you. I expect it is most likely not.


----------



## prabe

@Campbell I agree it is almost certainly not a game for me. As with BitD, my first reaction was to figure out how I could get a character killed quickly, which is probably about rejecting one or more premise (setting or something in the mechanics). I know myself well enough not to play the game when I get those kinds of messages from the depths.

I'm less disappointed about AW than about BitD. I really, really wanted--and kinda expected--to like BitD; I had no such expectations of AW, but I was curious. I suspect it's connected to some contrariness at my core: I really want to immerse in the character and engage with the setting and the story, and the harder a TRPG works to *make* me do those things, the harder I resist.

While I don't disagree that TRPGs have real differences, I also believe they have real similarities. They might have different priorities, but overall I think they have similar goals. I don't think that means the games are boring.

I really don't know where my approach to GMing comes from, other than trying to run games I'd kill to be a player in. That's not super-helpful, because I don't really know how, when, or where I developed my preferences as a player, either, because--as you point out--it's really not the way most of the games I would have played or read as a newer gamer would have played.


----------



## Lanefan

Campbell said:


> It's pretty explicit that it is offering instruction rather than advice. Some people will always assume that they know how to play and run roleplaying games and pretty much ignore the text. I am pretty much not interesting in playing any game with that sort of person. Besides if instruction on how to play the game is taken as mere guidelines we might as well give up on game design as it pertains to roleplaying games. In that case we are all pretty much playing one game with different coats of paint. I find that beyond boring.



All RPG rules are, in the end, only guidelines until and unless a) houserules and b) GM rulings are banned somehow.



> That's the other thing. When the machinery of play is transparent it becomes really easy to tell when GM Force is being applied. Because there is no hidden layer of rules that players are not privy too there is nothing to hide behind.



The problem there is that if the machinery is that transparent (which is the wrong term, better would be "out in the open") it's also always in my face - as a player I can't ignore it and hope it goes away.



> Any game that has a meaningful GM role is going to provide them with enough latitude to exert pressure towards certain outcomes if they run a game without discipline. Stripping away that obfuscating layer makes it hard to apply GM Force in an artful (deceptive) manner.



Nothing wrong with some artfully-applied GM force here and there in any game.

Sometimes the GM actually does know what she's doing, and uses Force to gently direct things to what is untimately a more interesting and better game.  It's when GMs do it badly that things go wrong, and I suspect some people's views are clouded by one too many bad experiences in this regard.


----------



## Ovinomancer

Let me share the last scene from my Blades game this last weekend (I ended up running Blades due to a last minute on-call from one of my players).  First, a brief setup -- the PCs were burgling an apartment to steal an engagement ring so they could gain a loyal fence.  The fence had sold the ring, then found out it was the ring of a gang's leaders mother, and so was in a bad spot he couldn't get out of.  Turns out he sold the ring to the nephew of a rival gang and he had given it to his fiance.   The play was to get the fence out of trouble so he'd owe the Crew, and also to stoke up the war between these two rival gangs.  So, the launched their burglary with disguises to look like the rival gang, in case they were spotted.

At the end of the caper, two of the PCs were rapidly exiting the apartment via the fire escape because someone was entering the apartment.  There were a few of the rival gang around (the nephew was actually in the building checking out the apartment on a lower floor -- I thought maybe because he wanted to live close to the girl's parents, but it never came up, so I don't really know why - hold on lightly and all).  The PCs got a partial success on their Prowl to escape detection, and so made it to the alley below before the alarm was raised.  One gang member was chasing down the fire escape and another was at the mouth of the alley.  The PCs decided to leg it, and declared that they would split up, so no group led check.  One PC made a success with complication, and managed to escape with a twisted ankle (harm 1).  The other PC...  much more exciting.

So, to play.  The player has declared that they're legging it.  Since the gang members are fairly distant to start, I marked the position as Risky (default) with Standard outcome (again, default).  The player rolled Finesse, and bombed it.  Like critical failure bombed it.  So, I narrated that no matter how hard they tried, they couldn't shake this guy -- he must run every day or something -- and, after a few minutes, the ganger had closed the distance to almost grab range and had pulled his long knife.  This was my 'soft' move -- I escalated the danger and placed the PC in a 'do something about this now or else' situation. The player then marked equipment for an alchemist bandolier (the PC is a saboteur), and tried to have their PC throw acid in the ganger's face (the PC is also Not Nice), Pushing for an extra die.  I marked the position as Desperate (you're throwing acid in the face of a guy trying to stab you sounds kinda desperate to me) with Great Effect (landing acid in the face is a sure way to stop someone).  The player rolled, and failed again.  Since I had already made the 'soft' move, I paid it off.  The ganger, a trained fencer, deftly ducked the acid and slashed his blade down the PC's extended throwing arm!  Harm 2, deep laceration to the right arm.  The PC decided to resist, and rolled Insight, say that the ganger telegraphed the slash so the PC was able to pull back at the last minute.  They rolled resistance, and got a 6, meaning no cost in Stress to modify this outcome.  I downgraded the Harm 2 to Harm 1, shallow gash to right arm, and narrated the PC seeing the move at the last minute, yanking back and causing the acid to fly wide but saving their arm!  Regardless, the situation was largely similar, but I reframed that the interaction had opened the distance a bit, so the player decided to have the PC run again.

This time, though, the player changed tactics.  Instead of a foot race, which because of established fiction that the ganger was an excellent runner (he'd already run the PC down once), the player declared they were going to lead the chase into a crowded area, like a market.  The player suggested Survey, and I marked it as Risky, Standard (again, back to default).  [Sidenote:  if the PC had tried to outrun the ganger again, I would have set the outcome as limited -- you might open the distance a bit against a good runner (the PC wasn't established as athletic), but not much and not for long.]  The player rolled, and nailed it -- full success.  So, I narrated that they had burst into the main market for the neighborhood, and the ganger had followed but had to quickly conceal the knife, letting the PC slip a bit further ahead.  The player then had a stroke of genius (and some good luck), and declared that their character was now going to do the 'lift new clothes while walking through a market and change outfits to blend in' move, classic in so many spy movies.  Again, we set Position as Risky, but I really like this idea and thought it would work really well, so I set Effect as Great.  The player rolled Finesse and got another outright success!  I narrated that the PC deftly slipped through the market, shedding their rival gang disguise and picking up a few items to replace it, so that, finally, they stood gazing at a table of goods while the chasing ganger walked right past them.  The PC then made their way, without further incident, back to the hideout.

At the end of the session, the player of the saboteur (the PC in the above) exclaimed, "I f-----g love this game!  I was sweating the whole time, wondering what the hell I was going to do next!"  A better compliment could not have been paid to a GM.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> All RPG rules are, in the end, only guidelines until and unless a) houserules and b) GM rulings are banned somehow.




I suppose this is true in the mos literal sense that yes, ultimately, none of us have to play any game exactly as described in the book. However, I think that all of us would likely agree that certain rules or practices are more concrete than others. 

When you look at a game that offers specific principles for both players and GMs, these are meant to be more than suggestions. These are intended to be something considered at all times by the respective party.



Lanefan said:


> The problem there is that if the machinery is that transparent (which is the wrong term, better would be "out in the open") it's also always in my face - as a player I can't ignore it and hope it goes away.




Games have mechanics. These should not send participants running for the hills crying about verisimilitude. 

There's a case to be made for withholding some game mechanics at times......maybe exactly how difficult a task may be is unknown to the person attempting it, and so the DC that the GM sets for the task is not announced to the players. I can understand the appeal of that, even if I don't generally follow that practice. 

Now....there is also a case for sharing all of the mechanical details of a game because it makes the chances and stakes known. There are no unknown rules that the GM can hide behind, as @Campbell explained. 

For me, looking at these two approaches, I see both are perfectly valid. I prefer to share more to keep the game more clear for all involved, even if it's at the cost of some immersion or verisimilitude (such loss is minimal, in my experience, but opinions vary).



Lanefan said:


> Nothing wrong with some artfully-applied GM force here and there in any game.
> 
> Sometimes the GM actually does know what she's doing, and uses Force to gently direct things to what is ultimately a more interesting and better game.  It's when GMs do it badly that things go wrong, and I suspect some people's views are clouded by one too many bad experiences in this regard.




I wouldn't say that GM Force is never good, or can never be used effectively....so in that we agree. However, I believe the means in which the GM is able to apply force matter. What limits are in place, what principles guide the use, and so on? 

To say "a GM may use Force if it leads to a more interesting and better game" is very broad. It's hard to quantify, and also what is "more interesting" and "better" is subjective. 

This is why it helps when there are principles in place that limit how a GM can apply Force, and how they can exercise their other authority within the game.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Ovinomancer said:


> At the end of the session, the player of the saboteur (the PC in the above) exclaimed, "I f-----g love this game! I was sweating the whole time, wondering what the hell I was going to do next!" A better compliment could not have been paid to a GM.




This is something that's said a lot by my group of Blades players. They really like the way it flows and how unpredictable it all is. That's awesome to hear.


----------



## Manbearcat

@Ovinomancer

That is a pretty sterling play example of Blades executed well.



prabe said:


> It'll be far easier for me to reply to both these at once, so ... that's what I'm doing. This isn't an attack (or even really a defense) but I notice and find it interesting that you both picked up on the same two things. In a way, I'm glad, because it makes it easier to respond to both of you at once, both logistically and psychologically. @Manbearcat I honestly do not understand what you mean by "machinery of provocation" in this context, but I'll try to explain my reasoning and if that's not what you're looking for we can figure out what words will convey what you want to me?
> 
> Yes, the primary example of not honoring success is, as @pemerton deduced, the play example of Marie the Brainer, from the section "Rules of Play: Moves Snowball" which my pdf shows as being page 152 of the MC's Playbook (from the 1E stuff available for free, the file says it's 1E-1up). What I see as "success not being honored" is that the PC managed a full hit--a 10 on the roll--and didn't even get part of the result they were looking for. There's the description of when the same character sends people out to bring back Joe's Girl and they break her in the bringing back, but there's no action resolution described there, just the GM being a dick. Heck, you could argue it's a principle of the game--Respond with fuckery and intermittent rewards; if success isn't always going to succeed, where's the agency?
> 
> An example of GM move demonstrating planning? "Announce future badness." (I'm looking at "Your Moves" on page 116 of the same pdf.) If it's going to be bad in the future you're kinda saying there's nothing the PCs can do about it. I'm not saying it's bad, and I'm not saying there's more Force in it than there is in, say, D&D 5E; I'm saying it's the same.




By "machinery of provocation" I just meant something like "describe what bothers you but in extreme detail."  Alright, let me break down the play excerpt from a GMing perspective.

1)  He's framing the scene initially and notice how he "asks a provocative question (and uses/builds on the answer)"; "is the situation charged?"  The player responds "it is now."  This is a principle of PBtA games.  The GM frames the scenes, but you need to either be (a) soliciting players for input and using it (especially against them when you need to make a move) and/or (b) disclaiming decision-making to the dice with a lot of regularity.

2)  The _misdirect_-principle guided move "Put Someone in a Spot" or "Tell The the Possible Consequences and Ask" as a result of the 7-9 result on "read a sitch" is straight-forward.  Its the same thing I've talked about in terms of running 4e Skill Challenges and Blades' Scores and Torchbearer Twists.  You need to Change the Situation (with either new obstacles or an escalation to an existing situation) when action resolution occurs, but the way the situation changes won't alway stem causally from the actual action taken within the fiction.  This actually hooks directly into my invocation of the Captain of the Guard earlier if the PC rolled a successful Intimidate check in the lead post's conflict.  Its a classic _misdirect_!  In the AW example, the Player Character Read(ing) a Sitch (and getting a 7-9 result required a complication) didn't actually make Isle's brother (a) a young boy and (b) non-violent.  Neither did the PC (through a successful Intimidate) make the Captain of the Guard a sympathetic ear in the parley with the Burgomeister.  In both cases, that is the fiction (that hasn't been pre-established) emerging organically as a result of proper GMing meeting the outcome of the resolution mechanics!  In the AW case:

a)  The GM has to make a soft move to complicate things because of the 7-9 result.

b)  Obviously, Mills (the brother) becomes a complication to this because he's both a child and at least non-violent (if not delicate). Serious violence will endanger the kid and we'll learn something about the character if she goes with that approach and her life is now complicated if she doesn't want to hurt a child.

c)  The _misdirect _(again, as above) principle just means that the situation is changing adversely, but not as a direct causal byproduct (in the fiction of Apocalypse World) of Read(ing) a Sitch.  Its a byproduct of principled GMing (according to AW).  Yes, its meta.  Damn good meta.  That's the point.

3)  I think you're not understanding the mechanical implications of the Brainer Move; _Direct-brain whisper projection.  _The GM has a choice to make; (i) go with it (in this case the "Charm" effect) or (ii) force your hand and take Harm.  There will be cases when the better call is (i) and cases when the better call is (ii).  Whichever one is better will depend upon the established fiction (Isles may very well be an established hard-ass and an important figure - I mean the PC is after her afterall), making the characters lives not boring, and the game's principles. 

He asks "loud or not" (as he must after he chooses option ii).  PC says no.  Alright, the NPC has taken harm by resisting a Brainer who has directly interfaced with the NPC's brain!  Something has to happen as an output.  The "loud" keyword here basically means the situation escalates NOW and the other two NPCs are aware of the problem.  However, the GM has to make a soft move to reframe the conflict but they can't do it in way that would dishonor the success and the PC's decision on "not loud" which means that the situation can't immediately escalate.  So, deftly, he makes a soft move (as you have to do constantly when you're framing and reframing conflict in the game); "Activate their stuff's downsides" and/or "Tell Them the Possible Consequences and Ask."  In this case, she's in a bit of a stupor with blood coming out of her ears.  The other two NPCs won't immediately notice (she's just in a a pondering stupor), react, and escalate the situation, but the PC is now face with a decision-point on how to proceed because that escalation is coming if she doesn't.

With a diminished Isle (Harm 1), but a complicated situation, she decides to exit stage left and regroup with her Gang.



That is enough for now. 

What about that either bothers you and/or doesn't make sense in your reading of AW?

EDIT FOR CLARITY


----------



## Campbell

@Lanefan

My stance is that roleplaying games just are not fundamentally special. I treat the rules in a roleplaying game exactly the same as a board game. We can all agree to change the rules, but unless that agreement is made the expectation is that we are playing the game by those rules including how it defines the GM and player roles. Some games provide a certain degree of latitude to the GM, but constrain how they are intended to use that latitude. Other games provide less latitude. Some provide a great deal of unconstrained latitude. Regardless I believe in following the direction the game provides you.

The entire point of game design is to get us to do things we would otherwise not do - to allow us to have experiences we would otherwise not get to have. If we are not constrained by the game we are not really playing a game. You are certainly not refereeing a game if you are not following the instruction it provides for how to referee it.

Generally if I am sitting down to play a roleplaying game where story is an important component (i.e. not a dungeon crawling game focused on skilled play) I am looking for an environment where everyone (including the GM) experiences the story together. I am looking for creative collaborators - not someone who will place their vision of how things should go above what we are all doing together. I do not care how artfully it is done. It ruins the alchemy for me. What's happening at the table (or recently across Discord) is like so much more important to me than the final result. Those creative relationships are worth nurturing.

For me meaningful tension is a huge part of why I play roleplaying games. For me that tension does not feel real if I even suspect a man behind the curtain. I just cannot really put my energy into a character if we are not all playing to find out what happens. I can enjoy it, but I just cannot expend meaningful emotional energy on the game. I will not put myself out there if relationships are not equitable.

That's pretty much true of the Fifth Edition game I am a player in. I take my story cues, casually enjoy it, try not to push too hard either mechanically or in the fiction, and enjoy the company of my friends.  I do not really have a meaningful creative connection to my character, other player's characters or the setting. The GM is skilled at that style of play. I just am not able to invest myself into the situation.


----------



## Lanefan

hawkeyefan said:


> Games have mechanics. These should not send participants running for the hills crying about verisimilitude.
> 
> There's a case to be made for withholding some game mechanics at times......maybe exactly how difficult a task may be is unknown to the person attempting it, and so the DC that the GM sets for the task is not announced to the players. I can understand the appeal of that, even if I don't generally follow that practice.
> 
> Now....there is also a case for sharing all of the mechanical details of a game because it makes the chances and stakes known. There are no unknown rules that the GM can hide behind, as @Campbell explained.



Problem there is that the players instantly acquire metagame knowledge which the PCs in the fiction do not have; and this meta-knowledge is inevitably going to affect what those players have their PCs do (or try to do).



> I wouldn't say that GM Force is never good, or can never be used effectively....so in that we agree. However, I believe the means in which the GM is able to apply force matter. What limits are in place, what principles guide the use, and so on?
> 
> To say "a GM may use Force if it leads to a more interesting and better game" is very broad. It's hard to quantify, and also what is "more interesting" and "better" is subjective.



Yeah, it's a know-it-when-you-see-it kind of thing from both sides of the screen but I think there's relatively broad agreement on what makes a session better or worse, mostly revolving around level of player engagement.

Ovinomancer's BitD session, for example, sounds like it was a blast without any force needed at all.


----------



## prabe

Thanks for the detailed reply. I trust you didn't take it as even an implied attack. I'm well aware there's something in my brain that reacts badly to this type of game, and I think I may be getting to understanding what it is. Dunno if I'm looking to change it, exactly; understanding it might be good enough.



Manbearcat said:


> By "machinery of provocation" I just meant something like "describe what bothers you but in extreme detail."  Alright, let me break down the play excerpt from a GMing perspective.




Seems as though my understanding was pretty close, but I may not have given you enough detail before, at least based on the relative amounts of text. ;-) I'll try to do better.



Manbearcat said:


> 1)  He's framing the scene initially and notice how he "asks a provocative question (and uses/builds on the answer)"; "is the situation charged?"  The player responds "it is now."  This is a principle of PBtA games.  The GM frames the scenes, but you need to either be (a) soliciting players for input and using it (especially against them when you need to make a move) and/or (b) disclaiming decision-making to the dice with a lot of regularity.




Yeah. I'm with you so far. It's pretty straightforward.



Manbearcat said:


> 2)  The _misdirect_-principle guided move "Put Someone in a Spot" or "Tell The the Possible Consequences and Ask" as a result of the 7-9 result on "read a sitch" is straight-forward.  Its the same thing I've talked about in terms of running 4e Skill Challenges and Blades' Scores and Torchbearer Twists.  You need to Change the Situation (with either new obstacles or an escalation to an existing situation) when action resolution occurs, but the way the situation changes won't alway stem causally from the actual action taken within the fiction.  This actually hooks directly into my invocation of the Captain of the Guard earlier if the PC rolled a successful Intimidate check in the lead post's conflict.  Its a classic _misdirect_!  In the AW example, the Player Character Read(ing) a Sitch (and getting a 7-9 result required a complication) didn't actually make Isle's brother (a) a young boy and (b) non-violent.  Neither did the PC (through a successful Intimidate) make the Captain of the Guard a sympathetic ear in the parley with the Burgomeister.  In both cases, that is the fiction (that hasn't been pre-established) emerging organically as a result of proper GMing meeting the outcome of the resolution mechanics!  In the AW case:




And here's where I come to understand (or at least where I come to be able to put into words) my problem with/thinking of games written from or for this POV. There is (or at least can be) a severance of cause and effect, action and result, that feels to me more like a weakening of agency than a strengthening of it. In the case of Isle's brother, that's just filling in details as needed, nothing special.



Manbearcat said:


> a)  The GM has to make a soft move to complicate things because of the 7-9 result.
> 
> b)  Obviously, Mills (the brother) becomes a complication to this because he's both a child and at least non-violent (if not delicate). Serious violence will endanger the kid and we'll learn something about the character if she goes with that approach and her life is now complicated if she doesn't want to hurt a child.
> 
> c)  The _misdirect _(again, as above) principle just means that the situation is changing adversely, but not as a direct causal byproduct (in the fiction of Apocalypse World) of Read(ing) a Sitch.  Its a byproduct of principled GMing (according to AW).  Yes, its meta.  Damn good meta.  That's the point.




Yes, it's meta, and yes, it's the point; I'm not convinced it's actually good meta, though. By misdirecting so thoroughly and so often, by breaking the lines of cause and effect, action and result, you lessen the ability of the character to actually control or choose how they affect the story, which reduces their agency. If attempting A to cause B results in theta, how is a character to understand the world and maybe change it?



Manbearcat said:


> 3)  I think you're not understanding the mechanical implications of the Brainer Move; _Direct-brain whisper projection.  _The GM has a choice to make; (i) go with it (in this case the "Charm" effect) or (ii) force your hand and take Harm.  There will be cases when the better call is (i) and cases when the better call is (ii).  Whichever one is better will depend upon the established fiction (Isles may very well be an established hard-ass and an important figure - I mean the PC is after her afterall), making the characters lives not boring, and the game's principles.




Indeed. I was figuring it was an ability that was actually useful, and that it worked the way the player in the example expected it to. Apparently I was wrong pretty much all around. Maybe there's a reason in the fiction for Isle to take the harm--that's half of enough to kill her--rather than following, but Marie's player seems kinda blindsided by it so I'm not sure it's established; and if it's not established it kinda looks like the GM being a dick.

Also, this:


Manbearcat said:


> The GM has a choice to make; (i) go with it (in this case the "Charm" effect) or (ii) force your hand and take Harm.  There will be cases when the better call is (i) and cases when the better call is (ii).  Whichever one is better will depend upon the established fiction (Isles may very well be an established hard-ass and an important figure - I mean the PC is after her afterall), making the characters lives not boring, and the game's principles.




is basically the GM making a decision because he thinks it'll make for a better moment, which isn't all that radically different from making a decision because it'll make a better story--the time scale is the only difference I see.



Manbearcat said:


> What about that either bothers you and/or doesn't make sense in your reading of AW?




Actually, it all makes sense, per my reading of AW, and I think that's connected to what bothers me. AW doesn't seem to be a game about stories so much as it is about moments, and it's always looking for the better moment. It's playing in the now (is that from the rules or this discussion?) which makes for lots of fun around the table but doesn't seem as though it's doing more than scratching the various surfaces around it. I think severing cause/effect and action/result works well for making moments, and poorly for making actual coherent narratives happening in actual coherent worlds featuring actual coherent characters.

I think the difference in focus--moments over stories--is at the root of my distaste for AW and BitD. I have nothing against great moments, but I think they're made better if they're actually rooted in the fiction, if they have context, if there's more of a direct connection between cause and effect or action and result. Neither stories nor moments need to be driven by GM Force, but neither is automatically free of it either (and as is often made clear, GM Force isn't automatically Bad GMing--that depends on more than just the GM).


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> The GM sets the scene - which includes the box and its contents (if any) - ahead of time.



Says whom?

Are you able to understand that there are different ways of playing RPGs? I don't understand why you present your own approach as having universal normative force.



Lanefan said:


> Think of the box and its contents (if any) as analagous to a stage prop, with the only difference being that the scene-setter has no way of knowing in advance how or even if this prop will be interacted with by the actors (players, through their PCs).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The role of the GM is to narrate what happens in terms of what the PCs perceive.  If the box can easily be opened the GM narrates what's inside based on what she already knows is (or isn't) there.  If the box can't easily be opened there's a check to see if the PC can open it; on success (or on the box being broken, possibly) the GM narrates what's inside, and on failure the GM narrates that the box remains closed (or, perhaps, has been broken).



Who has agency over the fiction in a play? Not the actors. In the case of a prop. either the director, the producer or the playwright, depending on the detais of the production.

So can you not see that, if a RPG is approached the way that you describe, _the players are not exercising agency in respect of the content of the fiction?_

Whether or not one has a certain preference, _isn't the analysis crystal clear?_



Lanefan said:


> stuff has to be done at the table in order for this to happen, but that stuff IMO should revolve around getting the player's imagination of the setting and scene and the character's perception of it into as close to complete agreement as possible.



But aren't you simply saying here that _you prefer a game in which the players do not have agency in respect of certain aspects of the shared fiction?_ Such as the contents of boxes that their PCs open.



Lanefan said:


> As you say, it's not mysterious. The GM controls all aspects of the setting, including the props - and their locations



Are you really saying that you are unable to comprehend that there are other approaches?

This is a bit like having a conversation about which side of a car the steering wheel is on, and which sort of turn yields an obligtion to give way, and having someone respond to an Australian that, _yes, I understand, the steering wheel is on the left and one yields when turning lefft. _As if they are literally unable to comprehend that there are parts of the world that have different having different traffic conventions than those that prevail in North America.

Here, again, is your post to which I replied:



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> What the box contains is not part of any action resolution. Instead, it falls under GM narration. Which means declaring "I (try to) open the box in hopes the Crown of Revel is inside" still only has the same three outcomes: open box, closed box, or broken box. That the player mentions the Crown of Revel doesn't change whether the Crown is inside or not...unless you want to take control over the setting away from the GM, in which case why bother having a GM other than as meeting facilitator and (usually IMO) host.



Are literally unable to comperehend that there are approaches to RPGing in which the action resolutoin _I look in the box fro the Crown of Revel_ is determined by a check, with success meaning that the PC finds the Crown in the box when s/he looks, and failure meaning that the GM narrates something different from that which is in some fashion adverse to the PC?



prabe said:


> And it's clear that you and @Lanefan would interpret and resolve this declaration differently.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'd probably interpret it roughly the same way @Lanefan would



I'm not confused about how Lanefan approaches RPGing. I'm puzzle that he seems unable even to comprehend that others do it differently. And that those differences reflect - in part - different distributions of agency over the content of the shared fiction.



prabe said:


> Because the character is the means through which the player shapes or changes--or whatever verb you care to use--the story. Changing the story some other way doesn't feel to me like agency--it feels like some sort of authorship or narrative authority.



Given that, in this context, _agency over the shared fiction _and _authority in respect of the shared fiction_ or _authorship of the shared fiction _are all synonyms, I don't understand your contrast.

That the latter two are synonyms (in this context) is evident in the fact that _author _and _authority _are cognate words. As far as the first is concerned - if the players can't, via the procedures of game play, bring it about that the shared fiction is or contains (say) X rather than (say) Y, they manifestly are not exercising agency in respect of it.

When @chaochou (who introduced this discussion of agency some way upthread) and I (who have always been crystal clear that I am followin chaochou's usage) talk about _agency over the fiction_, we are not talking about _the power to oblige the GM to reveal what s/he has already written_. We are talking about _the power to have the content of the fiction follow one's desires in respect of it_.

The contrast emerges pretty clearly in the OP's situation. The player, in that situation, clearly had the power to trigger the GM to reveal the GM's prior conception of the burgomaster - this is in fact exactly what happened when the insult by the PC led the GM to narrate the burgomaster's response. But pretty clearly the player was not exercising agency over the content of the shared fiction: it seems pretty clear that the player wanted the shared fiction to contain a burgomaster who was _cowed _or _chastised _or _rebuked, _or in some other, roughtly similar way put back into his box by the PC's harsh remark. But the player had no chance to bring this about. Which is to say, the player was not exercising agency over the shard fiction.

As I have said to Lanefan, one may or may nor prefer a game in which players exercise this sort of agency. But I am not talking here about preferences. I am simply analysing the way that game play unfolds. @Campbell has, upthread, set out an account of one approach to play in which one does not want players to exercise agency over the content of a box - namely, OSR-ish/"skilled play" RPGing in which part of the point of play is to figure out what the GM has decided is in the box, or - if one wants to find the Crown of Revel - where the GM has written, ahead of time, that it is hidden.

Likewise there may be approaches to play in which part of the point of play is to figure out whether or not the GM has decided, ahead of time, that the burogmaster will call the guards in response to any insult. I'm not sure if anyone in this thread has clearly articulated what such an approach would be - the obvious one that comes to my mind is an approach to play in which _the players' goal is to experience the gameworld and the various components of that fiction as the GM conceives of them_.

But one can't talk coherently about these various approaches to play without actually first noting what jobs, and what sorts of agency, they give to various participants.

For instance, suppose one wanted to write an instruction manual for RPGing that woiuld help produce situations like that described in the OP. That manual would have to tell the GM something like _you decide how the burgomaster reacts to insults, and you narrate consequences by following the implications of that decision_. If the manual said _when PCs interact with the burgomaster, they get to have an influenced over how the story unfolds _it would be unhelpful at best, and misleading at worst.


----------



## Campbell

@pemerton

For more character focused games I am a pretty big fan of what John Harper calls *the line* in Apocalypse World. Basically when called upon either by the GM or the rules players get to have  a say about things their characters may have experienced. They do not get to have a say over things their character would have no way of knowing.

*What's in the box* is over the line.
*Why do you hate Plover* is under the line.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I'm not confused about how Lanefan approaches RPGing. I'm puzzle that he seems unable even to comprehend that others do it differently. And that those differences reflect - in part - different distributions of agency over the content of the shared fiction.




I didn't mean any offense; there have been instances upthread where clarification from outside has seemed helpful, and I was endeavoring to help. You are free to be puzzled by @Lanefan and I will not try to explain y'all to each other further, but I hope you understand that I do comprehend that others play differently, and I think I even understand some of why (beyond mere matters of taste), and *I am genuinely happy that others play differently than I do.*



pemerton said:


> Given that, in this context, _agency over the shared fiction _and _authority in respect of the shared fiction_ or _authorship of the shared fiction _are all synonyms, I don't understand your contrast.




Did you note that I said that changing the story directly doesn't feel like agency? That's because agency is over the character's actions and thoughts and responses and emotions. Authorship or narrative authority is about writing or re-writing the fiction more directly. Your character opening the box because you (and the character) expect to find the Crown of Revel inside is agency; your character opening the box and finding the Crown of Revel inside because you the player made a relevant check is re/writing the fiction to place the Crown of Revel inside the box--that's authorship/narrative authority. Please note: *I'm not saying either way is wrong or bad.* I have a preference, yes, but I'm not attempting to imply any judgment here.

Now, the character might--should, really--shape the story or world through their actions, and their actions should be the result of their responses to previous events. That's still not the same thing as authorship/narrative authority, though, because it's the character's actions and decisions that are changing the world in the fiction.

Yes, I have a preference for authorship/narrative authority to lie mostly in my head as the GM, but that's because I find it easier to keep the facts/stories/world straight if I made all (or at least most) of it. I find that as a GM the world gets murky and less coherent (for me, in my head) as more people author it. I'm probably most comfortable as a player with a similar distribution of narrative authority, probably for mostly-similar reasons (plus a belief that the players have mostly-complete authority over their characters) but I'm willing to step out of my comfort zone as a player if the situation is right for it.



pemerton said:


> The contrast emerges pretty clearly in the OP's situation. The player, in that situation, clearly had the power to trigger the GM to reveal the GM's prior conception of the burgomaster - this is in fact exactly what happened when the insult by the PC led the GM to narrate the burgomaster's response. But pretty clearly the player was not exercising agency over the content of the shared fiction: it seems pretty clear that the player wanted the shared fiction to contain a burgomaster who was _cowed _or _chastised _or _rebuked, _or in some other, roughtly similar way put back into his box by the PC's harsh remark. But the player had no chance to bring this about. Which is to say, the player was not exercising agency over the shard fiction.




I believe many of us were interpreting that outburst differently than that, and the state of the fiction sure did change after that remark, so there seems to at least be a case for agency. "Agency" doesn't mean always getting what you want. I believe it has to contain the possibility of making mistakes--such as perhaps insulting an overly-sensitive BurgerMaster. It's clear to me that you disagree with some or all of that, and I really don't care to re-argue it.



pemerton said:


> Likewise there may be approaches to play in which part of the point of play is to figure out whether or not the GM has decided, ahead of time, that the burogmaster will call the guards in response to any insult. I'm not sure if anyone in this thread has clearly articulated what such an approach would be - the obvious one that comes to my mind is an approach to play in which _the players' goal is to experience the gameworld and the various components of that fiction as the GM conceives of them_.




If we take the OP at his word that there was ample information made available to the characters/players about the BurgerMaster's hypersensitivity and general instability, and if one is open to the idea that "agency" includes the ability to make mistakes, then I don't see the incoherence here that you seem to. OTOH, I do think you've managed to describe Adventure Path style gaming pretty well: It's not a style of gaming that seems interested in character agency.


----------



## hawkeyefan

Lanefan said:


> Problem there is that the players instantly acquire metagame knowledge which the PCs in the fiction do not have; and this meta-knowledge is inevitably going to affect what those players have their PCs do (or try to do).




Well, they may acquire some metagame knowledge....it depends on the circumstances. Whether that's a problem or not depends on the participants. You would likely consider it a problem. I would most likely not.

For me, the benefit of rules transparency on play far outweighs any drawback of players having some metagame knowledge.



Lanefan said:


> Yeah, it's a know-it-when-you-see-it kind of thing from both sides of the screen but I think there's relatively broad agreement on what makes a session better or worse, mostly revolving around level of player engagement.
> 
> Ovinomancer's BitD session, for example, sounds like it was a blast without any force needed at all.




Having engaged players may be the only aspect of a game that I might agree is broadly agreed upon. How they are engaged and what they are doing and all the other elements that make a game better or worse.....well, this thread alone gives a strong sense to me that there's a lot of variety in that regard.

I agree that @Ovinomancer 's game sounds like it was a lot of fun, and it seems the participants thought so, too. And yet, Blades is a game where the mechanics are almost always known to the players. Any time the player declares an action for their PC, the GM will provide them with their Position (how risky the action is given the circumstances) and the Effect (the strength/scope/size of the outcome of the action). So before dice are rolled, a player knows how risky the action is and what will happen if successful, and based on their PC stats, they know their chances of success. None of this is ever hidden from the player, and once it's stated out loud, the player can then decide to proceed and make their roll, or they can pursue another action.

No Force is possible in this regard, precisely because of the way the game works.

Now, could a GM try to force a particular outcome through their role of determining the consequences on a failure or a partial success? Yes, that is possible to some extent. I think @Campbell offered an example that he found dissatisfying, but it seems that GM was adjudicating things more in favor of the PCs. If a GM tried to force things in some negative way for the PCs, I think it would be obvious. Also, the players have the ability through PC resource to override the GM's ruling on a consequence......so they could literally overturn that decision. In such an instance, the main issue would be the potentially unnecessary use of Stress to resist the consequence.

I think GM Force mostly comes up in Blades as part of the initial set up and in certain parts of the game where the GM may craft situations for the PCs to address (whether as a Score or as an Entanglement). However, these instances where the GM is introducing content of his own choosing, there are still some strong principles that are meant to be followed.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> Yes, the primary example of not honoring success is, as @pemerton deduced, the play example of Marie the Brainer, from the section "Rules of Play: Moves Snowball" which my pdf shows as being page 152 of the MC's Playbook (from the 1E stuff available for free, the file says it's 1E-1up). What I see as "success not being honored" is that the PC managed a full hit--a 10 on the roll--and didn't even get part of the result they were looking for.



I'm really just echoing @Campbell here, but I don't get this.

Here's the 10+ result foe *go aggro*: they have to choose: force your hand and suck it up, or cave and do what you want.

The 10+ result doesn't guarantee that the player's desire is realised. It only lets the player put the other participant (GM if the move is made against a NPC; player if the move is made against another PC) to a choice.

If the player's desire is not _to influence the other character _but rather _to remove the other character as an obstacle to his/her PC's actions_ then the choice made by the other participant may not matter (eg in the example of play Isle is out of the action bleeding through her ears). If the player's desire is_ to have the other character do something s/he wants_ the game simply doesn't give the player that degree of agency via the *go aggro *move. The player would have to *seduce/manipulate* instead, which has the following 10+ result when used vs NPCs: they ask you to promise something first, and do it if you promise. . .  whether you keep the promise is up to you, later.

It's possible for the player of a brainer to gain the psychic ability to seduce someone, but this doesn't remove the need to make the promise in order to get the response: *Unnatural lust transfixion*: when you try to seduce someone, roll+weird instead of roll+hot.

But Marie's player chose the following power for his/her brainer:

*Direct-brain whisper projection*: you can roll+weird to get the effects of going aggro, without going aggro. Your victim has to be able to see you, but you don’t have to interact. If your victim forces your hand, your mind counts as a weapon (1-harm ap close loud-optional).​
Notice how it even spells out that the other participant can force your hand?

When it is the MC who is the other participant who gets to make the decision, then as @Campbell has said s/he is obliged to follow the relevant principles and to stick to his/her agenda. That is to say, the MC's agency is constrained. But the game rules make it clear that, at this point, it is the MC who has agency in respect of the shared fiction. All the player can do is put the other participant to the choice. The game even spells this out (p 109):

The players’ job is to say what their characters say and undertake to do, first and exclusively; to say what their characters think, feel and remember, also exclusively; and to answer your questions about their characters’ lives and surroundings. Your job as MC is to say everything else: everything about the world, and what everyone in the whole damned world says and does except the players’ characters.​
This is a very clear description of who has what sort of agency in respect of the shared fiction.



prabe said:


> There's the description of when the same character sends people out to bring back Joe's Girl and they break her in the bringing back, but there's no action resolution described there, just the GM being a dick. Heck, you could argue it's a principle of the game--Respond with fuckery and intermittent rewards; if success isn't always going to succeed, where's the agency?



Here's the full text from p 113:

Marie makes it super clear to Roark that she doesn’t care who he kills, but he’s to bring Joe’s Girl (an NPC) back to her alive. For “questioning” or “examination” or something — Marie wants access to Joe’s Girl’s living brain. So Roark goes out, murders a batch of people, and comes back with Joe’s Girl alive. Here’s where I f*** around, though: he’s beaten the **** out of her.
Marie has access to her brain (because always give the characters what they work for) but she’s in a coma, her back is broken, her face is smashed in. Joe’s Girl is alive for now, but ruined for good. I gave Marie what she worked for, but not really what she hoped for. See it? Throw curves. Put your bloody fingerprints all over everything you touch.​
That's an example that illustrates how the game distributes agency. Marie's player is able to establish a fiction in which Roark brings back Joe's Girl, brain intact. The MC is able to establish that all that's left of Joe's Girl is her brain.

The game has ways to allow Marie's player to produce different outcomes for Joe's Girl - we don't know what action resolution occurred to produce that particular hypothetical episode of play, but obviously both Going Aggro and Seducing/Manipulate create ways for Roark to agree to bring Joe's Girl back alive and unharmed. But the game still tells the MC to put his/her "bloody fingerprints" on whatever happens then - eg maybe when Roark comes back with Joe's Girl the whole of the rival steading's gang is right behind him.

The underlying idea is that the GM is always entitled and indeed oblifged to introduce adversity into the situation. That's what makes the game progress. In the case of Joe's Girl beaten to a pulp - if Marie wants her back and healthy s/he needs to find an angel, or an angel-kit, or a savvyhead with the right sort of workspace, or whatever.



prabe said:


> An example of GM move demonstrating planning? "Announce future badness." (I'm looking at "Your Moves" on page 116 of the same pdf.) If it's going to be bad in the future you're kinda saying there's nothing the PCs can do about it.



No. The whole point of _announcing future badness _(in Dungeon World this is called _revealing an unwelcome truth_) is to enable the players, via their PCs, to do something about it.

Consider, for instance, the example I just posted: Roark turns up with Joe's Girl alive and unharmed, but the rival hardhold's gang is right behind him. That's _annoucning future badness_. And the game progresses in virtue of the players responding. In my particular example, there are all sorts of things they might do - from all piling into the Driver's tank and fleeing the scene, to mustering their own gang to go out and fight, to trying to persuade the rival gang leader to back off, to . . .  etc etc etc.



prabe said:


> I'm not saying there's more Force in it than there is in, say, D&D 5E; I'm saying it's the same.



I see very few accounts of 5e D&D play taking place as transparently as AW. To go back to the OP situation, I also don't see that 5e D&D has anything like *go aggro *or *seduce/manipulate *that allows a player to put those sorts of constraints on a GM's narration of what a NPC does. I really find the whole comparison a bit odd.



Campbell said:


> There were several people who remarked that the way Apocalypse World instructed you to run the game was not novel - that they had been doing so all along. In the context of roleplaying game design I think it was fairly novel to see it enumerated in text. The agenda and principles it lays out are almost directly opposed to established wisdom enumerated in games like AD&D Second Edition, Vampire - The Masquerade, Legend of the Five Rings, et al. What little direction Fifth Edition provides does not point to that type of agenda. It is not the agenda of Burning Wheel. It is not the agenda of B/X.



Right.

I can't think of many RPGs text that are contemporaneous with or earlier than AW that are as crystal clear on how-to-play. Moldvay Basic comes close but is not as clear: you have to also read Gygax's AD&D to get the full picture of the "skilled play" idea. But Gygax's AD&D doesn't have the same level as procedural advice for the GM as Moldvay Basic does.

Burning Wheel Revised/Gold is very clear, but to get as clear as AW you have to supplement it with the Adventure Burner/Codex.

Maelstrom Stoyrtelling is pretty clear - close to being as clear as AW - but I think few posters on this board know it. Prince Valiant is clearer than the 5e D&D PDF but not as clear as AW (Ron Edwards notes this about Prince Valiant in his "story now" essay).

As far as the play experience and agency are concerned, what is striking about AW - to me, at least - is how it reconciles a very traditional allocation of agency to the participants with a player-driven game. One important way it does this is precisely via moves like *go aggro *or *read a situation *which force the GM to make decisions, here-and-now, about elements of the fiction, like _whether or not the NPC yields to the PCs' threats_ or _what the best escape route is_. The player can lock the GM in, and then act on that subsequent fiction.

Of classic games, I think Classic Traveller comes closest to this sort of structure, though it's rules text is much less clear about it and you have to do some extrapolating (from such varied bits of text as the rules for vacc suit skill, the rules for ship's boat skill which set out an evasion sub-system, the rules for law-level, admin skill and bribery skill which tell you how to get out of a spot with police and other officials, etc). It's utterly absent from classic D&D - which is about skilled play against the background of the GM's prior prep, not about locking the GM in in the moment of play - and it's utterly absent from AD&D 2nd ed and most late-80s/90s games, which don't contemplate at all that the GM might be locked in by the players.



prabe said:


> By misdirecting so thoroughly and so often, by breaking the lines of cause and effect, action and result, you lessen the ability of the character to actually control or choose how they affect the story, which reduces their agency. If attempting A to cause B results in theta, how is a character to understand the world and maybe change it?



Why are we talking about the character here?

Causation in AW (the fictional place) is no different from causation in the real world, with the provisos that (i) there is a psychic maelstrom that can affect things in the "real" world, and (ii) the people of the world are rather cynical and harsh.

Characters change that world by acting on it.

But when we're talking about RPGing, and agency, we are talking about _players _in the (really) real world - sitting at a table or talking to one another over Zoom or whatever. How do players in AW change the fiction? By declaring moves for their PCs and rolling high. Sometimes high rolls allow them to say what happens next - see eg a good roll on Seduce/Manipulate where the other participant is the MC controlling a NPC. Sometimes high rolls allow them to force another participant to make a binding choice - see eg Go Aggro, or Seduce Manipulate where the other participant is a player controlling a PC, or Read a Situation.

The obvious difference from 5e D&D, and again pointing back to the OP, is that the D&D player has no way to make the GM make a binding choice, and reveal it and stick to it. The player can't oblige the GM to reveal truths about the burgomaster's feelings and intentions (ie there's no analogue to Read a Person). The player can't oblige the GM to make a choce for the burgomaster of either relenting in the fact of the PC's desire or sucking up harm (ie there's no analogue to Go Aggro). In the OP's example the player clearly didn't know what the burgomaster was thinking or feeling and had no way beyond GM discretion of learning that; and the OP clearly was not able to force the GM to a choice in respect of the burgomaster's conduct - the burgomaster got to call the guards without suffering any harm from the attempt to threaten his life.

Completely different procedures of play.


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> @pemerton
> 
> For more character focused games I am a pretty big fan of what John Harper calls *the line* in Apocalypse World. Basically when called upon either by the GM or the rules players get to have  a say about things their characters may have experienced. They do not get to have a say over things their character would have no way of knowing.
> 
> *What's in the box* is over the line.
> *Why do you hate Plover* is under the line.



Sure. We all have preferences.

My point is twofold. First, i_f the GM is deciding what's in the box_ then the player is not exercising agency over that component of the shared fiction. And obviously is not. Yet there are posters here - @prabe, @Lanefan - who are asserting the contrary.

Second, if the game permits action declarations such as _I look in the box for the Crown of Revel_ then the player is not being called upon to cross the line. Because the player's authorship only kicks in when the player has knowledge - that is to say, the revelation of the Crown in the box (should it occur) occurs only when the player  PC looks in the box.

This is an important feature of a game like BW that makes it a RPG and not a shared storytelling game. The players do not have any sort of generalised or abstracted "narrative authority". And in fact have less say over the general content of the fiction than AW players - eg BW has no real analogue of _Ask provocative questions and build on the answers._

All the players' "metagame" moves in BW take the form of _action declarations by the player for the PC_. So eg Catacombs-wise is _using my knowledge of the catacombs, I find a path that leads me beneath the NPC wizard's tower. _Circles is _I look around the docks to see if there's anyone there whom I know. _Etc. It is the PC who is always at the centre of the action, even if the PC is not causally responsible for all of the established elements of the fiction (eg the PC didn't put the Crown in the box; the PC didn't build the catacombs; the PC didn't cause the NPC to be on the docks; etc).

In one of our BW sessions the PCs had arrived at a tower which - as per established backstory - had been the home of the PC sorcerer when he was studying under his brother's tuition. As part of the same backstory, the tower had been attacked by orcs and the brother, in trying to summon a Storm of Lightning to fight off the orcs, had failed in his casting and been possessed by a balrog. (How the PC had escaped to actuall be there at the beginning of the campaign, some years after those events, had not and still has not been established.) Now the tower was ruined and abandoned.

The player, at about this point, told us more of his PC's backstory: while living in the tower, as a pupil of his brother, he had been working on a nickel-silver mace called the falcon's claw. But it had been left behind when the tower fell to the orcs. Now that the PC was back, he wanted to recover the mace. So they searched the tower for it. Mechanically, this was a Scavenging check.

The check failed. So I - as GM - had to narrate some adverse outcome. I narrated that the PCs did find something, but not the mace. Rather, they found - in the area of the tower which had been the brother's workshop - a stand of black arrows, very like the one broken arrow still carried by the elven PC in memory of his former captain who had been slain by an orc shooting that arrow.

The ensuing play established that the brother had made those black arrows. The significance of this was that it revealed that the brother's evil _preceded_, in some fashion at least, his possession by a balrog. He had already been making cursed arrows that orcs would take and use.

In structural resolution terms, this is strictly parallel to the box and the Crown. But it never requires the player to separate his/her knowledge as player from that as PC. There is no meta-declaration about the location of the mace. There is action declaration and resolution. It doesn't cross Harper's line.

I realise that AW doesn't have much of this sort of resolution. (It has a bit: the Battlebabe's Vision of death is one example.) The result is a different distribution of authority over the shared fiction, with greater MC control over when the PCs find the things, places etc that they want.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> I believe many of us were interpreting that outburst differently than that, and the state of the fiction sure did change after that remark, so there seems to at least be a case for agency. .



What control has the player exercised? The player has forced the GM to say something. All RPGing involves that - otherwise it would be monologue, not conversation. But the player had no control over what the GM said. That is why I say the player exercised no agency. In my post not far upthread I've explained in some detail how this contrasts with the ability of an AW player to force the GM to make constrained and binding choices about what s/he says next.



prabe said:


> Did you note that I said that changing the story directly doesn't feel like agency? That's because agency is over the character's actions and thoughts and responses and emotions. Authorship or narrative authority is about writing or re-writing the fiction more directly. Your character opening the box because you (and the character) expect to find the Crown of Revel inside is agency; your character opening the box and finding the Crown of Revel inside because you the player made a relevant check is re/writing the fiction to place the Crown of Revel inside the box--that's authorship/narrative authority.



Here is a typical example of D&D play:

GM: you see an orc - it's charging at you with its axe!
Player: OK, I draw my sword and fight back!
<dice are rolled as per the combat rules - the orc's hp number is reduced to zero, the PC's hp number remains above zero>
GM: Good stuff, you've killed the orc. What now?​
The player has re/written the fiction to include a dead orc. That is agency over the shared fiction.

_As far as the process of play is concerned_, the Crown example is no different:

GM: you find a box - it's about a foot square and 6" deep?​Player: so big enough to hold the Crown of Revel?​GM: Yep!​Player: OK, so I open it and look inside.​<dice are rolled as per the (at this point hypothetical) searching-for-stuff rules, and the player succeeds>​GM: Cool, you open the box and see the Crown of Revel inside.​
Identical degrees of agency in both cases.

Contrast:

GM: you find a box - it's about a foot square and 6" deep?​Player: so big enough to hold the Crown of Revel?​GM: Yep!​Player: OK, so I open it and look inside.​<GM consults notes - they state that the box is empty>​GM: Sorry, you open the box and there's nothing in it, certainly no crown.​
And we could set up a parallel example of a combat:

GM: you see an orc - it's charging at you with its axe!​Player: OK, I draw my sword and fight back!​<GM looks at notes, which record that this orc won't be beaten in melee but takes those it defeats prisoner>​GM: Sorry, you're no match for the orc. It knocks you down with its axe and binds your hands and feet with cord. Now you're a prisoner of the orcs.​
In both these examples, the player doesn't exercise agency over the content of the shared fiction. I think the second example would be pretty controversial at a D&D table - though there are example of it in canonical D&D material like the Slave Lords modules. The first is what you and @Lanefan are advocating for in respect of looking in boxes.

The two examples are stricly identical in degree of player agency over the shared fiction.



prabe said:


> Now, the character might--should, really--shape the story or world through their actions, and their actions should be the result of their responses to previous events. That's still not the same thing as authorship/narrative authority, though, because it's the character's actions and decisions that are changing the world in the fiction.



I don't understand why you use the word _agency_ to describe your preferences as to _when you want the GM rather than the player to exercise agency_. It is very confusing.

If you said _When it comes to revelations about things and places I prefer that the GM exercise agency _then I would follow quite clearly. @Campbell has said a version of just this in a recent post not far upthread.



prabe said:


> I have a preference for authorship/narrative authority to lie mostly in my head as the GM, but that's because I find it easier to keep the facts/stories/world straight if I made all (or at least most) of it. I find that as a GM the world gets murky and less coherent (for me, in my head) as more people author it. I'm probably most comfortable as a player with a similar distribution of narrative authority, probably for mostly-similar reasons (plus a belief that the players have mostly-complete authority over their characters)



This is pretty clear. The bit that confuses me is when you say that the GM exercising this sort of control over the shared fiction also counts as an example of the player exercising control over the shared fiction.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> I'm really just echoing @Campbell here, but I don't get this.




Yeah. I misunderstood the brainer move being used.



pemerton said:


> When it is the MC who is the other participant who gets to make the decision, then as @Campbell has said s/he is obliged to follow the relevant principles and to stick to his/her agenda. That is to say, the MC's agency is constrained. But the game rules make it clear that, at this point, it is the MC who has agency in respect of the shared fiction. All the player can do is put the other participant to the choice. The game even spells this out (p 109):
> 
> The players’ job is to say what their characters say and undertake to do, first and exclusively; to say what their characters think, feel and remember, also exclusively; and to answer your questions about their characters’ lives and surroundings. Your job as MC is to say everything else: everything about the world, and what everyone in the whole damned world says and does except the players’ characters.​




Yup. I agree, the GM was perfectly within the rules and spirit of the game to make that choice. In the example of play, there's no real indication why Isle is willing to accept such grievous harm in order to resist, and the player seems surprised, which kinda indicates maybe there's nothing previous in the fiction to indicate it, or maybe the player just missed it. In any event, it's a perfectly good GM move, same as having the BurgerMaster call for his guards when a PC insults him.



pemerton said:


> No. The whole point of _announcing future badness _(in Dungeon World this is called _revealing an unwelcome truth_) is to enable the players, via their PCs, to do something about it.




Actually, best I can tell, the point of the move is to give the characters something to react to. There's no way the characters can prevent it, because it doesn't exist in the fiction until the GM makes the move.



pemerton said:


> I see very few accounts of 5e D&D play taking place as transparently as AW. To go back to the OP situation, I also don't see that 5e D&D has anything like *go aggro *or *seduce/manipulate *that allows a player to put those sorts of constraints on a GM's narration of what a NPC does. I really find the whole comparison a bit odd.




And I don't think AW looks as transparent from the rules and examples of play therein as all that and all that. All that emphasis on misdirection seems to be pointing in the opposite direction as transparency to me.



pemerton said:


> Why are we talking about the character here?




We are talking about the character, because the character is the reason for and the method of playing the game. Even Adventure World says so, talks about how hot and dangerous and otherwise compelling they are.



pemerton said:


> Characters change that world by acting on it.




Exactly so, and the players changing the world by anything other than their characters' actions is meta.



pemerton said:


> The obvious difference from 5e D&D, and again pointing back to the OP, is that the D&D player has no way to make the GM make a binding choice, and reveal it and stick to it. The player can't oblige the GM to reveal truths about the burgomaster's feelings and intentions (ie there's no analogue to Read a Person). The player can't oblige the GM to make a choce for the burgomaster of either relenting in the fact of the PC's desire or sucking up harm (ie there's no analogue to Go Aggro). In the OP's example the player clearly didn't know what the burgomaster was thinking or feeling and had no way beyond GM discretion of learning that; and the OP clearly was not able to force the GM to a choice in respect of the burgomaster's conduct - the burgomaster got to call the guards without suffering any harm from the attempt to threaten his life.




So, I'd say that if the GM is running the world properly, their choices should be binding, whether the player wants to make them so or not. That could be considered a principle just as binding as the principles in AW. I'll admit the rules don't have a lot to say explicitly about handling this, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to allow an WIS (Insight) check to get a read on the BurgerMaster: The PHB says specifically, "Your WIS (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone's next move.". It wouldn't be unreasonable for the insult to be a CHA (Intimidate) check, or if you were trying to make him your enemy it could be a CHA (Persuasion) check to make him more hostile to you (the rules only cover making people friendlier but I see no reason you couldn't choose the opposite). No, there's no mechanism other than resolving an attack for a character to do damage to another, so there's no way for them to hurt the BurgerMaster other than to attack him--which they arguably did, when they tried to grapple him and take him hostage.  The rules are different.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> What control has the player exercised? The player has forced the GM to say something. All RPGing involves that - otherwise it would be monologue, not conversation. But the player had no control over what the GM said.




Well, the player had his character insult the BurgerMaster. The BurgerMaster reacted by calling his guards. The state of the fiction changed. Obviously, the character altered the shape of the coming fiction by his actions. Might not have been the outcome he wanted, but oh comma well.



pemerton said:


> Here is a typical example of D&D play:
> 
> GM: you see an orc - it's charging at you with its axe!​Player: OK, I draw my sword and fight back!​<dice are rolled as per the combat rules - the orc's hp number is reduced to zero, the PC's hp number remains above zero>​GM: Good stuff, you've killed the orc. What now?​
> The player has re/written the fiction to include a dead orc. That is agency over the shared fiction.
> 
> _As far as the process of play is concerned_, the Crown example is no different:
> 
> GM: you find a box - it's about a foot square and 6" deep?​Player: so big enough to hold the Crown of Revel?​GM: Yep!​Player: OK, so I open it and look inside.​<dice are rolled as per the (at this point hypothetical) searching-for-stuff rules, and the player succeeds>​GM: Cool, you open the box and see the Crown of Revel inside.​
> Identical degrees of agency in both cases.




Actually, no. The player in the D&D example has re-written the present, through his character's actions. The player in the Crown example has re-written the past (somehow the Crown got into that box) outside of his character's actions. This seems like a pretty clear difference to me: The former is agency, the latter is narrative authority.



pemerton said:


> Contrast:
> 
> GM: you find a box - it's about a foot square and 6" deep?​Player: so big enough to hold the Crown of Revel?​GM: Yep!​Player: OK, so I open it and look inside.​<GM consults notes - they state that the box is empty>​GM: Sorry, you open the box and there's nothing in it, certainly no crown.​
> And we could set up a parallel example of a combat:
> 
> GM: you see an orc - it's charging at you with its axe!​Player: OK, I draw my sword and fight back!​<GM looks at notes, which record that this orc won't be beaten in melee but takes those it defeats prisoner>​GM: Sorry, you're no match for the orc. It knocks you down with its axe and binds your hands and feet with cord. Now you're a prisoner of the orcs.​
> In both these examples, the player doesn't exercise agency over the content of the shared fiction. I think the second example would be pretty controversial at a D&D table - though there are example of it in canonical D&D material like the Slave Lords modules.




I think you're right that the second would be grounds for an argument at a D&D table--it looks like a combat, which the players expect to resolve like a combat.

I think the first might not generate argument, depending on the table. Depending on how important the Crown of Revel is, and whether it's a goal or a key (which aren't metaphors we've been using, but which I hope are clear) a DM might insist the PCs search the right box, or the right room, or the right house; I think a table might have sorted those expectations before going looking for the Crown of Revel; I think it'd be a good idea if they did.

No, neither case is allowing narrative authority. The first isn't robbing anyone of agency--they chose to come to this room and look in this box, they can look in other rooms and other boxes, they can try to figure out how they came to be wrong about finding the Crown in this box in this room; especially if they determine they've been led astray, the story might well go interesting places, and there'd be agency. The second case appears to be more of a problem, agency-wise, simply because it looks like a combat but apparently isn't going to resolve like one; it feels as though the GM has taken charge of the story, perhaps just for a moment.

Maybe these cases aren't so identical as you think.



pemerton said:


> The first is what you and @Lanefan are advocating for in respect of looking in boxes.




I don't think I'm advocating for it as hard as you maybe think I am. It's my preference (though as I've said I'm flexible about needing to get the right box, room, or building) but I don't think I've said it's wrongbadfun or anything like that--I think I've been very careful not to, because I know attacking people's tastes and preferences can feel as though you're attacking their person, and I'm not trying to attack anyone.



pemerton said:


> I don't understand why you use the word _agency_ to describe your preferences as to _when you want the GM rather than the player to exercise agency_. It is very confusing.
> 
> If you said _When it comes to revelations about things and places I prefer that the GM exercise agency _then I would follow quite clearly. @Campbell has said a version of just this in a recent post not far upthread.




I certainly prefer it as a GM--for reasons I think I've stated, of finding it easier to run if all the facts (or revelations, if you prefer) are coming from my own head.

I think I use the word agency because I understand it to mean control over character actions and decisions, not (to use your word) revelations. I think of revelations (and similar declarations) to be narrative authority.



pemerton said:


> This is pretty clear. The bit that confuses me is when you say that the GM exercising this sort of control over the shared fiction also counts as an example of the player exercising control over the shared fiction.




So, first, I might have been unclear in trying to say that as a player, I prefer if the GM is at least mostly responsible for the world (declarations and revelations) so long as he's consistent about it. (It actually irritates me when the GM is inconsistent about these things, which might not surprise you). If that was the clarity problem, you can stop here.

If that wasn't the clarity problem, then perhaps I wasn't clear about players having complete authority over their characters. I mean, it's D&D so there are effects like charm and dominate, but outside of those (and they've come up a total of maybe three times in 75 sessions between two campaigns) I don't run the characters, and I don't take away the player's control (authority) over the characters, and I ask for backstories for the characters and work with the players on fitting those backstories into my world. I do not tell them what their characters feel, emotionally, and I do not lead them around by the nose to follow some grand story I have laid out for the campaign.

Is that clearer, or did I guess wrong about what you didn't understand?


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> In the example of play, there's no real indication why Isle is willing to accept such grievous harm in order to resist, and the player seems surprised, which kinda indicates maybe there's nothing previous in the fiction to indicate it, or maybe the player just missed it. In any event, it's a perfectly good GM move, same as having the BurgerMaster call for his guards when a PC insults him.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> it wouldn't be unreasonable to allow an WIS (Insight) check to get a read on the BurgerMaster: The PHB says specifically, "Your WIS (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone's next move.". It wouldn't be unreasonable for the insult to be a CHA (Intimidate) check, or if you were trying to make him your enemy it could be a CHA (Persuasion) check to make him more hostile to you (the rules only cover making people friendlier but I see no reason you couldn't choose the opposite). No, there's no mechanism other than resolving an attack for a character to do damage to another, so there's no way for them to hurt the BurgerMaster other than to attack him--which they arguably did, when they tried to grapple him and take him hostage.  The rules are different.



No one disputes the rules are different. One difference is the degree of transparency.

The player in AW _knows _that if s/he succeeds on the Go Aggro check, s/he is putting the GM to a choice. What does the player in 5e know? That "it wouldn't be unreasonable" to allow various checks? Or that the GM might make a decision unilaterally without framing checks?



prabe said:


> Well, the player had his character insult the BurgerMaster. The BurgerMaster reacted by calling his guards. The state of the fiction changed. Obviously, the character altered the shape of the coming fiction by his actions.



The character didn't change the ficiton. The character exists within the fiction and does not author it.

The GM changed the fiction. S/he did so because s/he was prompted to by the player's action declaration.



prabe said:


> I don't think AW looks as transparent from the rules and examples of play therein as all that and all that. All that emphasis on misdirection seems to be pointing in the opposite direction as transparency to me.



It may be that you have misunderstood what "misdirect" means. From AW pp 110-11, 153:

Of course the real reason why you choose a move exists in the real world. Somebody has her character go someplace new, somebody misses a roll, somebody hits a roll that calls for you to answer, everybody’s looking to you to say something, so you choose a move to make. Real-world reasons. However, misdirect: pretend that you’re making your move for reasons entirely within the game’s fiction instead. Maybe your move is to *separate them*, for instance; never say “you missed your roll, so you two get separated.” Instead, maybe say “you try to grab his gun” - this was the PC’s move - “but he kicks you down. While they’re stomping on you, they drag Damson away.” The effect’s the same, they’re separated, but you’ve cannily misrepresented the cause. Make like it’s the game’s fiction that chooses your move for you, and so correspondingly always choose a move that the game’s fiction makes possible. . . .

She rolls+sharp and hits with a 7–9, so she gets to ask me one question from that move’s list. “Which of my enemies is the biggest threat?” she says.

“Plover,” I say. “No doubt. He’s out of his armor, but he has a little gun in his boot and he’s a hard f*****. Mill’s just 12 and he’s not a violent kid. Isle’s tougher, but not like Plover.” (See me *misdirect*! I just chose one capriciously, then pointed to fictional details as though they’d made the decision. We’ve never even seen Mill onscreen before, I just now made up that he’s 12 and not violent.)​
_Misdirection_ is Vincent Baker's term for the MC (=GM) establishing fiction in response to the resolution of declared actions. The MC does not explain his/her real world reasoning. Rather, s/he establishes and narrates fiction that generates the outcome to which s/he has reasoned in the real world.

This is part of what establishes transparency from the players' point of view: the player knows the fiction. There isn't secret or unrevealed fiction that the GM is nevertheless using to make resolution decisions (contrast what you and @Lanefan are advocatig for in this thread)



prabe said:


> best I can tell, the point of the move is to give the characters something to react to. There's no way the characters can prevent it, because it doesn't exist in the fiction until the GM makes the move.



This is wrong, and again suggests misunderstanding.

Here are some examples of _announced future badness _(AW, pp 111, 116-18, 128):

Maybe your move is to *announce future badness*, but for god sake never say the words “future badness.” Instead, say how this morning, filthy, stinking black
smoke is rising from somewhere in the car yard, and I wonder what’s brewing over there? . . .

“[A]nnounce future badness,” for instance, means think of something bad that’s probably going to happen in the future, and announce it. . . .

The most important and versitile setup move is *announce future badness*. If you don’t have another move already at hand, announce future badness:

_“Someone’s in there, you hear them moving. What do you do?”

“‘Oh, hey, Keeler, Ribs is looking for you.’ What do you do?”

“She’s about to figure out where you are. What do you do?”

“Dude you have a split second before that thing gets its teeth into your arm. What do you do?”

“‘Hey boss, it’s cool, but I don’t think everybody’s happy. There’ve been more fights down in the stews, I think somebody’s maybe trying to move in on somebody else’s biz.’ What do you do?”

“You hear a dog outside, sniffing and whining. ‘You found something, boy?’ What do you do?”_ . . .

The MC move for pushing is *announce future badness*. “Wilson, you’re down collecting the day’s water from the well and do you feel like reading a charged situation? Something seems off this morning.” “Keeler, Dog Head does what you say, but, it’s like, he keeps looking at you for a minute after you give him the order. What do you do?” “Bran, while you’re working, just for a few seconds all your lights dim and the constant low hum of your workspace? You hear it just start to slow. Everything kicks back in after just a second or two and you can keep working. What do you do?”​
The badness is threatened. The GM doesn't need to know what it is - we can see this in the examples, where eg the GM may not have decided yet why Bran's workshop lights dim, or why Ribs is looking for Keeler. The players may react to prevent the badness, or allow it to mature. That's their prerogative.

The clearest analogue in standard D&D play of _announcing future badness_ is the GM narrating what the PCs see when they open a door.



prabe said:


> The player in the D&D example has re-written *the present*, through his character's actions. The player in the Crown example has re-written *the past* (somehow the Crown got into that box) outside of his character's actions. This seems like a pretty clear difference to me: The former is agency, the latter is narrative authority.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> they chose to come to this room and look in this box, they can look in other rooms and other boxes, *they can try to figure out* how they came to be wrong about finding the Crown in this box in this room; especially if they determine they've been led astray, the story might well go interesting places, and *there'd be agency*. The second case appears to be more of a problem, agency-wise, simply because it looks like a combat but apparently isn't going to resolve like one; it feels as though the GM has taken charge of the story, perhaps just for a moment.



I have bolded some key phrases.

_The past _and _the present_ are descriptions of the fiction. I am consistently trying to talk about the real world. (This is slightly ironic in the context of your remarks about AW on misdirection, given that you seem to be misdirected in your analysis of RPG play by treating properties of the fiction as if they're properties of play.)

Your choice to give different sorts of labels to acts of authorship doesn't seem relevant to the point I am making - that point is that, in both cases, action declaration leads to new fiction being narrated (_dead orc_, _Crown found in box_). What I'm intrerested in is _who has the capacity to establish that new fiction?_ You do not appear to be contesting my conclusion in that respect. When you say that "there'd by agency" all you mean is that there would be action declarations that provoke the GM to narrate new stuff. The players wouldn't be establishing the contet of the ficiton.

What they would be doing is _figuring out stuff that the GM has made decisions about_. Which is what I called, upthread, RPGing-as-puzzle-solving.



prabe said:


> I think I use the word agency because I understand it to mean control over character actions and decisions, not (to use your word) revelations. I think of revelations (and similar declarations) to be narrative authority.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> as a player, I prefer if the GM is at least mostly responsible for the world (declarations and revelations) so long as he's consistent about it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> perhaps I wasn't clear about players having complete authority over their characters. I mean, it's D&D so there are effects like charm and dominate, but outside of those (and they've come up a total of maybe three times in 75 sessions between two campaigns) I don't run the characters, and I don't take away the player's control (authority) over the characters



But why, when I talk about _player agency in respect of the content of the shared fictin_, do you read my words through your peferred terminology?

When I read your paragraphs quoted just above, what I read is that you prefer a game in which there are large swathes of the fiction in respect of which _players do not exercise agency over its content_.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> No one disputes the rules are different. One difference is the degree of transparency.
> 
> The player in AW _knows _that if s/he succeeds on the Go Aggro check, s/he is putting the GM to a choice. What does the player in 5e know? That "it wouldn't be unreasonable" to allow various checks? Or that the GM might make a decision unilaterally without framing checks?




The player in AW knows the GM will make a choice but has no control over what the decision will be.

The player in 5E knows the GM will make a choice but has no control over what the decision will be.

I do not see a difference between the two conditions. I do not see a difference in agency.



pemerton said:


> The character didn't change the ficiton. The character exists within the fiction and does not author it.
> 
> The GM changed the fiction. S/he did so because s/he was prompted to by the player's action declaration.




Well, if I wanted to play the game and ignore the character I'd play something like Gloomhaven or Eldritch Horror or Pandemic (all of which I like, for what that's worth) where the "character" is just a bundle of abilities with a picture attached. That is neither how nor why I play TRPGs, though.

To be more responsive, at the same level of remove: The fiction changed as a result of the player's decision, which rounds to the player changing the fiction. Since the decision ended up being an action that the character takes, it works just as well to think of the character changing the fiction, since the action and the result are connected in the fiction.



pemerton said:


> It may be that you have misunderstood what "misdirect" means. From AW pp 110-11, 153:
> 
> {snip}
> 
> _Misdirection_ is Vincent Baker's term for the MC (=GM) establishing fiction in response to the resolution of declared actions. The MC does not explain his/her real world reasoning. Rather, s/he establishes and narrates fiction that generates the outcome to which s/he has reasoned in the real world.
> 
> This is part of what establishes transparency from the players' point of view: the player knows the fiction. There isn't secret or unrevealed fiction that the GM is nevertheless using to make resolution decisions (contrast what you and @Lanefan are advocatig for in this thread)




"Misdirect" seems to mean one of two things. It either means describe what you're doing in terms of the fiction (as in, having NPCs put PCs in different places, rather than saying "they separate you"--the principle is, IIRC "Make your move but never speak its name" or something close) or it means something more like narrative sleight-of-hand, where the connections between cause and effect, action and result, are muddied, to keep the players (and I suspect ideally the GM) guessing. The former is less about transparency than immersion; the latter is ... well, I don't entirely grasp what the point is, but I don't think it can be fairly be said to be about transparency.




pemerton said:


> This is wrong, and again suggests misunderstanding.
> 
> The badness is threatened. The GM doesn't need to know what it is. The players may react to prevent the badness, or allow it to mature. That's their prerogative.
> 
> The clearest analogue in standard D&D play of _announcing future badness_ is the GM narrating what the PCs see when they open a door.




Sure. Or however else a GM might be having the excrement hit the fan. Pretty standard stuff, then.



pemerton said:


> _The past _and _the present_ are descriptions of the fiction. I am consistently trying to talk about the real world. (This is slightly ironic in the context of your remarks about AW on misdirection, given that you seem to be misdirected in your analysis of RPG play by treating properties of the fiction as if they're properties of play.)




We've been talking about TRPGs, yes? A form of play that focuses around emerging story? The fiction that emerges is a property of play and the entire point of the play. I'm surprised you can be so dismissive of it.



pemerton said:


> Your choice to give different sorts of labels to acts of authorship doesn't seem relevant to the point I am making - that point is that, in both cases, action declaration leads to new fiction being narrated (_dead orc_, _Crown found in box_). What I'm intrerested in is _who has the capacity to establish that new fiction?_ You do not appear to be contesting my conclusion in that respect. When you say that "there'd by agency" all you mean is that there would be action declarations that provoke the GM to narrate new stuff. The players wouldn't be establishing the contet of the ficiton.
> 
> What they would be doing is _figuring out stuff that the GM has made decisions about_. Which is what I called, upthread, RPGing-as-puzzle-solving.




How'd the characters get there? What'll they do next? Aren't the answers to those questions fictional content? Didn't the players/characters have input to those answers? Aren't the characters in the fiction trying to figure out what's going on in the fiction?

It can be played in any number of ways, all of which are fine and valid and really do make sense as design decisions--it makes as much sense to have the player narrate what's in the box as it does to have the GM do so--but they lead, I think, to different types of stories emerging.



pemerton said:


> But why, when I talk about _player agency in respect of the content of the shared fictin_, do you read my words through your peferred terminology?




For the same reason that when I talk about "player agency" as "authority over the character" and "narrative authority" as "altering the fiction/facts of the world (including the possibility of changing facts outside of the character's control)" you read them through your preferred terminology. It's how I think about it.



pemerton said:


> When I read your paragraphs quoted just above, what I read is that you prefer a game in which there are large swathes of the fiction in respect of which _players do not exercise agency over its content_.




And I think you think "content" here means "what's in the box" whereas I think "content" means "what the characters do." In the example of the Crown or Revel being/not being in the box, there's no way the character has any control of that, whether the Crown being in the box is decided by the GM, erm, deciding, or as the result of an action-resolution check (where a success allows the player to put the Crown in the box). I'm not inclined to deny that I find it easier to play if I'm not having to think so much outside my character, nor that as a GM I find it easier if the facts of the world (such as whether the Crown of Revel is in the box) are in my head as opposed to yet-undertermined, but I don't think I've been impervious to the idea that others might prefer it otherwise.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> The player in AW knows the GM will make a choice but has no control over what the decision will be.
> 
> The player in 5E knows the GM will make a choice but has no control over what the decision will be.
> 
> I do not see a difference between the two conditions. I do not see a difference in agency.



This isn't quite right, though.  In AW, the GM is waiting on the player's action and the resolution to determine what happens next -- the player constrains the GM into narrating the result of their play and the mechanics constrain how the GM can introduce new fiction.  This style of play greatly constrains the GM's ability to Force outcomes, because you just can't plan the kind of play that occurs or it's immediately obvious.

In 5e, the player's action doesn't constrain the GM because the GM decides all of the fictional particulars of the action and can adjust those to the GM's thinking of how the scene should play or what fictional elements the GM has prepared but not yet introduced into play.

As an example, take the OP's situation.  The player insults the Burgomaster.  In AW, this would either work or would have to go to the mechanics.    The player would use the Go Aggro move.  The GM's narration would then be constrained by the result of the roll -- they couldn't have the Burgomaster call for the guards except on a failure or as part of a partial where they still give the player something they want.  Even if the GM chose to have the Burgomaster suck it up, the situation would then resolve with the Burgomaster at a disadvantage due to getting hit/hurt/held whatever.  It certainly wouldn't start with the players at the disadvantage because the odds just shifted.

In 5e, what happens is entirely up to the GM.   They could try something like the above, but the resolution mechanics in 5e don't really work very well for that kind of play, so it's kludgy.  Or, just as easily, you end up with the OP situation, the guards are called because the player trips across the GM's prepared responses.  In the first case, the player's agency is the same as in AW, but it's entirely at the GM's whim -- they GM has to allow this vice in AW the game says that's how it works.  In the second, the player didn't have agency because there was a secret established fact that prevented any outcome except the GM's prepared one (in this case, the GM that wrote the module).

These are pretty different outcomes from your oversimplification.  I mean, you roll the dice in the first one but not the second should be a pretty clear indication of something different here.





> Well, if I wanted to play the game and ignore the character I'd play something like Gloomhaven or Eldritch Horror or Pandemic (all of which I like, for what that's worth) where the "character" is just a bundle of abilities with a picture attached. That is neither how nor why I play TRPGs, though.
> 
> To be more responsive, at the same level of remove: The fiction changed as a result of the player's decision, which rounds to the player changing the fiction. Since the decision ended up being an action that the character takes, it works just as well to think of the character changing the fiction, since the action and the result are connected in the fiction.



I very much want you to tell my Blades players that they aren't playing their characters any more than when we play Gloomhaven (which we also do, fun game).  Characters don't exist, it's only ever the players that change things.  Point in fact, next time you RPG, wait for your character to do something and see what happens.

This is a common response to games that don't use atomic task resolution systems by people that like atomic resolution systems.  By atomic resolution, I mean at the smallest step you resolve specific actions that are fully encapsulated.  5e is often atomic in it's resolution, especially when dealing with those elements with good rules.  Take a trap.  I commonly see in 5e that you have to notice the trap, which is a perception check that only serves to notice the trap.  You then have to investigate the trap to see how it works.  This is usually presented as a singular investigate check.  Then you disarm the trap, which, again, is a singular roll that only determines success/failure at this one task.  Each of these is essentially separate, or atomic, and each doesn't work to move the fiction forward except by the very narrow task it's designed to operate on.  This, though, gets the label of playing through your character while a different game, that might treat a trap as an outcome of another failed check and will treat dealing with it very similarly, gets the label of meta or not as character focuses.  It's a false distinction.  I get you like what you like, but your issues aren't this character thing, or else you have a very bad grasp of the play involved.




> "Misdirect" seems to mean one of two things. It either means describe what you're doing in terms of the fiction (as in, having NPCs put PCs in different places, rather than saying "they separate you"--the principle is, IIRC "Make your move but never speak its name" or something close) or it means something more like narrative sleight-of-hand, where the connections between cause and effect, action and result, are muddied, to keep the players (and I suspect ideally the GM) guessing. The former is less about transparency than immersion; the latter is ... well, I don't entirely grasp what the point is, but I don't think it can be fairly be said to be about transparency.



No, quite simply, it's "tell a story about what happens, don't just state a move name."  By "make your move but never speak it's name" the intent isn't to muddy the game, but to force fiction to occur rather than bland mechanics.  "Tell of future badness" is a terrible things to say in game -- "um, there's some bad stuff coming," doesn't work at all.  "There's a massive crash downstairs, and you hear many heavy boots entering the building," makes things much more specific and gives the game engine those critical details that it works on.  The intent here is the exact opposite of obfuscation or misdirection, it's a push to narrate evocative fiction so the players can both feel in the fiction and change the range of options.

Out of time, so I have to stop here.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> I very much want you to tell my Blades players that they aren't playing their characters any more than when we play Gloomhaven (which we also do, fun game).  Characters don't exist, it's only ever the players that change things.  Point in fact, next time you RPG, wait for your character to do something and see what happens.




I was responding more to the idea that the character doesn't matter in the creation of the fiction. I can see how one might infer that I was saying that BitD or AW players don't play or care about their characters, but that was not my intended meaning.

Well, the entirety of the fiction doesn't really exist, does it? More to the point, I have been surprised by my fictional character's fictional actions and decisions in both the recent and distant past, and I expect to be so surprised again. Every now and then I'll stop and wait for the still, small voice of the character, just to make sure I'm on the right path.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> This isn't quite right, though.  In AW, the GM is waiting on the player's action and the resolution to determine what happens next -- the player constrains the GM into narrating the result of their play and the mechanics constrain how the GM can introduce new fiction.  This style of play greatly constrains the GM's ability to Force outcomes, because you just can't plan the kind of play that occurs or it's immediately obvious.
> 
> In 5e, the player's action doesn't constrain the GM because the GM decides all of the fictional particulars of the action and can adjust those to the GM's thinking of how the scene should play or what fictional elements the GM has prepared but not yet introduced into play.




So, how exactly does the player control which choice the GM makes, or even know what the GM's options are? The GM in AW doesn't seem to me (as someone who's just read the rules a couple times) to be all that much more constrained than the DM in 5E.



Ovinomancer said:


> As an example, take the OP's situation.  The player insults the Burgomaster.  In AW, this would either work or would have to go to the mechanics.    The player would use the Go Aggro move.  The GM's narration would then be constrained by the result of the roll -- they couldn't have the Burgomaster call for the guards except on a failure or as part of a partial where they still give the player something they want.  Even if the GM chose to have the Burgomaster suck it up, the situation would then resolve with the Burgomaster at a disadvantage due to getting hit/hurt/held whatever.  It certainly wouldn't start with the players at the disadvantage because the odds just shifted.
> 
> In 5e, what happens is entirely up to the GM.   They could try something like the above, but the resolution mechanics in 5e don't really work very well for that kind of play, so it's kludgy.  Or, just as easily, you end up with the OP situation, the guards are called because the player trips across the GM's prepared responses.  In the first case, the player's agency is the same as in AW, but it's entirely at the GM's whim -- they GM has to allow this vice in AW the game says that's how it works.  In the second, the player didn't have agency because there was a secret established fact that prevented any outcome except the GM's prepared one (in this case, the GM that wrote the module).




So, I'll let pass that by the DM deciding what happens, that's technically going to mechanics.

So, the AW player Goes Aggro and rolls. 10+ The BurgerMaster sucks it up (breaks) and calls for the guards. On a 7-9, the BurgerMaster "barricades himself securely in" and calls for the guards. On a miss, the BurgerMaster calls for the guards. A bad-faith GM can work inside AW just as easily--maybe more so, if the players believe otherwise--as a bad-faith DM in 5E. And the vibe I get from the book seems to me to encourage bad-faith (or at least dickish) GMing.



Ovinomancer said:


> This is a common response to games that don't use atomic task resolution systems by people that like atomic resolution systems.  By atomic resolution, I mean at the smallest step you resolve specific actions that are fully encapsulated.  5e is often atomic in it's resolution, especially when dealing with those elements with good rules.  Take a trap.  I commonly see in 5e that you have to notice the trap, which is a perception check that only serves to notice the trap.  You then have to investigate the trap to see how it works.  This is usually presented as a singular investigate check.  Then you disarm the trap, which, again, is a singular roll that only determines success/failure at this one task.  Each of these is essentially separate, or atomic, and each doesn't work to move the fiction forward except by the very narrow task it's designed to operate on.  This, though, gets the label of playing through your character while a different game, that might treat a trap as an outcome of another failed check and will treat dealing with it very similarly, gets the label of meta or not as character focuses.  It's a false distinction.  I get you like what you like, but your issues aren't this character thing, or else you have a very bad grasp of the play involved.




I don't see how the character's success/failure on a resolution determining whether the door is trapped--meaning literally that the trap is present on one result and not on another--can be anything other than meta. If doors are only ever trapped if you look for traps, why would you ever look for traps? That's probably not the best example ... Anyway, I actually do understand the playstyle, and I even see the appeal of something like Gumshoe where you always find what's there to be found but you might not understand it correctly (and I realize that Gumshoe might not be exactly the right style of play, where the declaration "I open the box, looking for the Crown of Revel" is an action-declaration that can be resolved, which on a result favoring the player means the Crown of Revel is in the box--I can see the appeal of that, too-- finding the Crown of Revel isn't the point, figuring out what to do with it is). Meta elements don't always need to detract from focus on the characters, but focus on the characters doesn't mean the player or the character has agency. While the player might have used the game's mechanics to put the Crown of Revel in the box, there's no in-fiction way for the character to have done so; I find that mechanics like that push me out of character rather than pulling me in. Those mechanics to me feel far more focused on story than on character/s.



Ovinomancer said:


> No, quite simply, it's "tell a story about what happens, don't just state a move name."  By "make your move but never speak it's name" the intent isn't to muddy the game, but to force fiction to occur rather than bland mechanics.  "Tell of future badness" is a terrible things to say in game -- "um, there's some bad stuff coming," doesn't work at all.  "There's a massive crash downstairs, and you hear many heavy boots entering the building," makes things much more specific and gives the game engine those critical details that it works on.  The intent here is the exact opposite of obfuscation or misdirection, it's a push to narrate evocative fiction so the players can both feel in the fiction and change the range of options.




Describing things in-the-fiction is good GMing, I agree. I don't think of it as "misdirecting," though. There is a fair amount of explicitly-encouraged jerking-around of the PCs by the GM, it seems. But I've been pretty clear for a while (at least in my head) that I'm not antagonistic enough as a GM to run any of these sorts of games. I'm happy to instigate, but after that I'm very hands-off.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> I was responding more to the idea that the character doesn't matter in the creation of the fiction. I can see how one might infer that I was saying that BitD or AW players don't play or care about their characters, but that was not my intended meaning.
> 
> Well, the entirety of the fiction doesn't really exist, does it? More to the point, I have been surprised by my fictional character's fictional actions and decisions in both the recent and distant past, and I expect to be so surprised again. Every now and then I'll stop and wait for the still, small voice of the character, just to make sure I'm on the right path.



In terms of agency, the character does not matter at all. Being a construct that cannot make choices, it lacks the fundamental requirements to have agency.  Instead, the character is a vehicle for the player's agency. Whether or not a game or a player chooses to treat the character as a pawn or decides to advocate strongly for the character is a completely separate issue from agency.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> In terms of agency, the character does not matter at all. Being a construct that cannot make choices, it lacks the fundamental requirements to have agency.  Instead, the character is a vehicle for the player's agency. Whether or not a game or a player chooses to treat the character as a pawn or decides to advocate strongly for the character is a completely separate issue from agency.




In fiction, a character without agency is the most boring type of character that exists. Fiction without interesting characters isn't worth my time.

EDIT TO ADD: This is why games where the characters have no real agency--where they can't really make decisions that really matter--are so boring, and so horribly bad. The players are bored, because the characters--the characters they're playing--are boring. It doesn't matter here whether it's because the system encourages the GM to steal the characters' agency, or because the GM is doing it in spite of the system; it doesn't matter if it's ignorance or malice.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> So, how exactly does the player control which choice the GM makes, or even know what the GM's options are? The GM in AW doesn't seem to me (as someone who's just read the rules a couple times) to be all that much more constrained than the DM in 5E.



I think, then, you're missing something absolutely fundamental.  

Again, let's look at the Burgomaster scenario.  Let's assume play, for whatever reason, has reached the same (or very similar) situation in both games, however that works.  So, what we have is a negotiation with a local power figure, and one player has chosen to escalate to threats and insults.  There's been some information passed that the Burgomaster does not tolerate such from townsfolk, but nothing yet established in play (not notes) as to how the Burgomaster will react.

In AW, the GM has two options -- let the insult work outright (say yes) or challenge it (roll the dice).  That's it, they can't look at any notes they may have (and prep can be a thing in AW) and declare an outcome.  The player, by dint of the action chosen, has constrained the GM to either agree or let the mechanics take it.  If the GM choses the mechanics, then we have three outcomes.  First, on a success, the GM can only choose to have the Burgomaster capitulate or to not capitulate but instead suffer whatever harm is part of the action.  In this case, a likely set of options would be that the Burgomaster backs down and proceeds accepting his unfit to rule or he resists but in doing so, the PC takes him hostage.  Play can proceed from here.

On a partial, the GM must accept one of the partial outcomes, _which the player chooses.  _The GM can then proceed with play, but this outcome is fixed.

On a failure, the GM is free to make however hard a move as they want, which would easily fit calling for the guards (show future badness).  

Regardless, the GM is tightly constrained as to what the result will be, and only has the option to follow through on whatever prep exists if he first challenges the action declaration and then the check fails.

In 5e, the GM just decides what happens.  They can decide to follow something that looks like the above, or they can decide to follow their notes.  The GM is unconstrained and can outright negate the intent of the action, either by fiat or because of secret notes that detail how this interaction will play out.  The best cast here for agency is that the GM decides to allow for it to exist.  A quite often outcome, especially in a module that does what this one did and pre-scripts outcomes without the benefit of the input fiction, is to not allow for agency to exist and instead direct play to the predetermined outcome.

Again, I love to play 5e.  It's just a different game and handles agency in a different way from games like AW.  I'm not, at all, trying to say that play in AW is better for any reason.  I'm just answering the claim that it's the same in regards to agency.  It is not.





> So, I'll let pass that by the DM deciding what happens, that's technically going to mechanics.



In 5e?  Sure, so long as we're agreed the mechanic is "GM decides."



> So, the AW player Goes Aggro and rolls. 10+ The BurgerMaster sucks it up (breaks) and calls for the guards. On a 7-9, the BurgerMaster "barricades himself securely in" and calls for the guards. On a miss, the BurgerMaster calls for the guards. A bad-faith GM can work inside AW just as easily--maybe more so, if the players believe otherwise--as a bad-faith DM in 5E. And the vibe I get from the book seems to me to encourage bad-faith (or at least dickish) GMing.



No, that's a bad outcome, and an immediately apparent use of Force.  It's apparent because the 'suck it up' choice results in the target refusing the demand but suffering a negative outcome.  Calling in reinforcements is not a negative outcome.  There are a wealth of possibilities, but none of them should be the BM sucking it up and getting an advantage out of that.  The choice to refuse the request on a success is to accept a different, but meaningful, penalty.  This is the agency inherent in the AW way of doing things -- the GM is constrained on a success to either have the NPC accede to the demand or suffer for refusing.  That the GM has the agency to choose between these two choices, and has some leeway on what harm is suffered if not clear from the fiction, does mean that the situation is the same as in 5e where the GM has no such constraints imposed by the player action. 




> I don't see how the character's success/failure on a resolution determining whether the door is trapped--meaning literally that the trap is present on one result and not on another--can be anything other than meta. If doors are only ever trapped if you look for traps, why would you ever look for traps? That's probably not the best example ... Anyway, I actually do understand the playstyle, and I even see the appeal of something like Gumshoe where you always find what's there to be found but you might not understand it correctly (and I realize that Gumshoe might not be exactly the right style of play, where the declaration "I open the box, looking for the Crown of Revel" is an action-declaration that can be resolved, which on a result favoring the player means the Crown of Revel is in the box--I can see the appeal of that, too-- finding the Crown of Revel isn't the point, figuring out what to do with it is). Meta elements don't always need to detract from focus on the characters, but focus on the characters doesn't mean the player or the character has agency. While the player might have used the game's mechanics to put the Crown of Revel in the box, there's no in-fiction way for the character to have done so; I find that mechanics like that push me out of character rather than pulling me in. Those mechanics to me feel far more focused on story than on character/s.



It's one of those hurdles you have to leap.  If a player declares an action and fails, and it would make sense in the currently established fiction and the genre that a door being used in the failed action is trapped, then announcing a trap is perfectly valid.  Randomly applying traps to doors that aren't part of a failed action is poorly done, and could be broken play, especially if it becomes a secret note against a future action.

Fundamentally, there's never a case in AW or DW where a door is secretly trapped before an action.  A trapped door is either established in previous fiction, such as information gained in prior sessions about this door, or in scene framing.  Never as something that the players have to check for or they fall victim to it.  This is the nature of PbtA play.  You're finding out that that door was trapped all along with the players, not determining it before play.  Prep, in this case, would be notes for a possible failed roll to have things quick to hand, not as a planned or necessary part of play.



> Describing things in-the-fiction is good GMing, I agree. I don't think of it as "misdirecting," though. There is a fair amount of explicitly-encouraged jerking-around of the PCs by the GM, it seems. But I've been pretty clear for a while (at least in my head) that I'm not antagonistic enough as a GM to run any of these sorts of games. I'm happy to instigate, but after that I'm very hands-off.



You're absolutely misdirecting if you're making one of those moves but not saying it's name.  And, no, it's not antagonistic.  One of the core principles of PbtA play is to be a fan of the PCs.  You should root for them, and enjoy their successes.  But, PCs can't have successes unless put into danger, so it's also your job to put the PCs into tough situations and see what happens.  This is what we do when we root for a character in a movie -- we don't want to see that character having a boring but happy home life where nothing happens.  We want to see that character put into bad spots and succeed!  Think about John in Die Hard -- it's a boring movie if the terrorists don't show up, or if John doesn't lose his shoes and run around barefoot.  John gets beat up, put in desperate situations, but everyone cheers when he comes out of it, battered but successful.  This is what you have to do in PbtA.  You don't jerk characters around, you faithfully play the bad situations they find themselves in, and then enjoy the hell out of them dealing with it.  Using the mechanics to tell when you should up the ante, and the principles of soft and hard moves, really put this into a very good framework of play where you're not arbitrarily being a jerk, you're adding pressure and problems due to the PC's own actions.  Simplifying this as antagonistic play or being a jerk to the players is completely not understanding the framework.

Again, I put my players through the wringer last weekend, and they loved it.  Doesn't sound like me being a jerk or being antagonistic.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> In fiction, a character without agency is the most boring type of character that exists. Fiction without interesting characters isn't worth my time.
> 
> EDIT TO ADD: This is why games where the characters have no real agency--where they can't really make decisions that really matter--are so boring, and so horribly bad. The players are bored, because the characters--the characters they're playing--are boring. It doesn't matter here whether it's because the system encourages the GM to steal the characters' agency, or because the GM is doing it in spite of the system; it doesn't matter if it's ignorance or malice.



Characters don't have agency, though.  What you're calling character agency is an illusion, one that's fun to engage in fiction.  However, nothing happens in fiction that isn't intended by the author -- no choice the character makes is actually a choice.  What you're confusing is a plot where a character appears to make hard choices and suffers for them.  I love those stories, too.  But, that character isn't actually making a choice or suffering a consequence.

Why is this important?  Because we're talking about agency in the sense of games, where the authoring of the story is shared out among participants and codified by rules.  The only people that have agency in this setup are the players.  Confusing this agency with the characters allows for confusion about what's actually happening.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> I think, then, you're missing something absolutely fundamental.
> 
> Again, let's look at the Burgomaster scenario.  Let's assume play, for whatever reason, has reached the same (or very similar) situation in both games, however that works.  So, what we have is a negotiation with a local power figure, and one player has chosen to escalate to threats and insults.  There's been some information passed that the Burgomaster does not tolerate such from townsfolk, but nothing yet established in play (not notes) as to how the Burgomaster will react.
> 
> In AW, the GM has two options -- let the insult work outright (say yes) or challenge it (roll the dice).  That's it, they can't look at any notes they may have (and prep can be a thing in AW) and declare an outcome.  The player, by dint of the action chosen, has constrained the GM to either agree or let the mechanics take it.  If the GM choses the mechanics, then we have three outcomes.  First, on a success, the GM can only choose to have the Burgomaster capitulate or to not capitulate but instead suffer whatever harm is part of the action.  In this case, a likely set of options would be that the Burgomaster backs down and proceeds accepting his unfit to rule or he resists but in doing so, the PC takes him hostage.  Play can proceed from here.
> 
> On a partial, the GM must accept one of the partial outcomes, _which the player chooses.  _The GM can then proceed with play, but this outcome is fixed.




The rulebook I'm looking at says, "When you Go Aggro on someone, roll+hard. On a 10+, they have to choose: force your hand and suck it up, or cave and do what you want. On a 7-9, they can instead choose 1:"

That tells me it's not the player choosing, it's the GM, so the player really has no control over the outcome. The example I laid out is book-legal, though it'd be horrible GMing--and I never said it was otherwise.



Ovinomancer said:


> In 5e, the GM just decides what happens.  They can decide to follow something that looks like the above, or they can decide to follow their notes.  The GM is unconstrained and can outright negate the intent of the action, either by fiat or because of secret notes that detail how this interaction will play out.  The best cast here for agency is that the GM decides to allow for it to exist.  A quite often outcome, especially in a module that does what this one did and pre-scripts outcomes without the benefit of the input fiction, is to not allow for agency to exist and instead direct play to the predetermined outcome.
> 
> Again, I love to play 5e.  It's just a different game and handles agency in a different way from games like AW.  I'm not, at all, trying to say that play in AW is better for any reason.  I'm just answering the claim that it's the same in regards to agency.  It is not.




Oh, yeah, they're different games, aiming at generating/enabling different stories, and I have no doubt that Baker played in some deeply dissatisfying games in other systems before he wrote his own.

I don't think I've been unclear that published adventures, especially adventure paths, are problematic for character agency--for the characters mattering much, even--and I also don't think I've been unclear that 5E is designed to enable play through published adventures. So, it's probable that many players' experience of 5E is going to be ... less than ideal. I think, though, that there's support in the game to play differently; I don't think 5E is limited to that sort of play.



Ovinomancer said:


> No, that's a bad outcome, and an immediately apparent use of Force.  It's apparent because the 'suck it up' choice results in the target refusing the demand but suffering a negative outcome.  Calling in reinforcements is not a negative outcome.  There are a wealth of possibilities, but none of them should be the BM sucking it up and getting an advantage out of that.  The choice to refuse the request on a success is to accept a different, but meaningful, penalty.  This is the agency inherent in the AW way of doing things -- the GM is constrained on a success to either have the NPC accede to the demand or suffer for refusing.  That the GM has the agency to choose between these two choices, and has some leeway on what harm is suffered if not clear from the fiction, does mean that the situation is the same as in 5e where the GM has no such constraints imposed by the player action.




The rulebook I have says "Force your hand and suck it up." BurgerMaster calls for guards and other party member attacks (tries to take him hostage). That genuinely doesn't sound all that incongruent to me. Yes, it's bad GMing in AW if any result of Go Aggro will have that result, and I've never said otherwise; I've just said it's possible to GM that way (and that the play examples in the book don't discourage it, actually seem to suggest it).



Ovinomancer said:


> It's one of those hurdles you have to leap.  If a player declares an action and fails, and it would make sense in the currently established fiction and the genre that a door being used in the failed action is trapped, then announcing a trap is perfectly valid.  Randomly applying traps to doors that aren't part of a failed action is poorly done, and could be broken play, especially if it becomes a secret note against a future action.
> 
> Fundamentally, there's never a case in AW or DW where a door is secretly trapped before an action.  A trapped door is either established in previous fiction, such as information gained in prior sessions about this door, or in scene framing.  Never as something that the players have to check for or they fall victim to it.  This is the nature of PbtA play.  You're finding out that that door was trapped all along with the players, not determining it before play.  Prep, in this case, would be notes for a possible failed roll to have things quick to hand, not as a planned or necessary part of play.




Yeah, I understand the mechanics, and I understand the ... rationalization of the mechanics--how the mechanics are meant to reflect/shape the emergent story.

OTOH: A 5E DM could randomly roll to determine if a door was trapped--the old school-ish random dungeons seem a likely application for this. He'd be finding out if it was trapped about the same time as the PCs. That's not my prefered playstyle, but it's not meta the same way as having it hinge on the outcome of a Perception check (or the equivalent).



Ovinomancer said:


> You're absolutely misdirecting if you're making one of those moves but not saying it's name.  And, no, it's not antagonistic.  One of the core principles of PbtA play is to be a fan of the PCs.  You should root for them, and enjoy their successes.  But, PCs can't have successes unless put into danger, so it's also your job to put the PCs into tough situations and see what happens.  This is what we do when we root for a character in a movie -- we don't want to see that character having a boring but happy home life where nothing happens.  We want to see that character put into bad spots and succeed!  Think about John in Die Hard -- it's a boring movie if the terrorists don't show up, or if John doesn't lose his shoes and run around barefoot.  John gets beat up, put in desperate situations, but everyone cheers when he comes out of it, battered but successful.  This is what you have to do in PbtA.  You don't jerk characters around, you faithfully play the bad situations they find themselves in, and then enjoy the hell out of them dealing with it.  Using the mechanics to tell when you should up the ante, and the principles of soft and hard moves, really put this into a very good framework of play where you're not arbitrarily being a jerk, you're adding pressure and problems due to the PC's own actions.  Simplifying this as antagonistic play or being a jerk to the players is completely not understanding the framework.
> 
> Again, I put my players through the wringer last weekend, and they loved it.  Doesn't sound like me being a jerk or being antagonistic.




Yeah. The GM's job is to place obstacles in the characters' way, and to present plausible opposition. That's ... pretty close to universal (there might be edge cases but I don't think they're the focus of discussion). Without the obstacles and/or opposition, there'd be nothing to center a story around--no decisions or actions that mattered. I think my sense is that having the world exist in a more or less objective sense (to use the most-current example, that door is trapped) makes it clearer that the GM is neither the obstacle nor the opposition; that seems to be true for me as a player, as well as as GM.

It's plausible I'm bouncing as much off Baker's writing as the game mechanics, but I did come to a similar conclusion about Fate (that the game needed the GM to be more antagonistic than I wanted to be), and that game is written ... more conventionally--and yes, I remember (I think) that you don't think Fate goes far enough.

I wouldn't say I've ever put my players through the wringer, but I would say the Masked Ones killed Imaktis, and more the Tundra Queen seems to have drawn their ire. The players have been coming back every other week for more than two years, so it's tempting to say they're digging it. There's probably some fundamental-ish difference in how we look at the stories that emerge from play, and the elements thereof.


----------



## hawkeyefan

prabe said:


> In fiction, a character without agency is the most boring type of character that exists. Fiction without interesting characters isn't worth my time.
> 
> EDIT TO ADD: This is why games where the characters have no real agency--where they can't really make decisions that really matter--are so boring, and so horribly bad. The players are bored, because the characters--the characters they're playing--are boring. It doesn't matter here whether it's because the system encourages the GM to steal the characters' agency, or because the GM is doing it in spite of the system; it doesn't matter if it's ignorance or malice.




I think I know what you mean when you’re talking about character agency in fiction. However, ultimately, what happens in the fiction happens because that’s what the author decides to happen. So although the characters may say “This all happened because Pandora opened the box” and within the fiction that may be accurate....in truth, it all happened because the author wanted it to.

And if we were talking about fiction, I’d say that this distinction is pedantic and annoying. 

But instead, we’re talking about a game with multiple participants who all contribute to the fiction. So understanding who establishes what and how is kind of important, and to keep returning to the idea that characters are deciding anything doesn’t help.

How does the GM establish fiction? In what ways is he limited in doing so? What about players; how do they establish fiction? How are they limited in doing so? 

These are the relevant questions.


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> However, nothing happens in fiction that isn't intended by the author -- no choice the character makes is actually a choice.




I can find examples that contradict this--at least at the author's conscious level. Just off the top of my head: King has said for decades that he never meant for the kid to die at the end of Cujo, and Alice Walker explicitly thanked the characters in The Color Purple for showing up.



Ovinomancer said:


> Why is this important?  Because we're talking about agency in the sense of games, where the authoring of the story is shared out among participants and codified by rules.  The only people that have agency in this setup are the players.  Confusing this agency with the characters allows for confusion about what's actually happening.




I agree that confusing what the players do with what the characters do makes for problems. Those problems seem inevitable in games that allow (or encourage) PvP, which is why I pretty much don't allow it at my table. I don't think it's as confusing to think of the characters as having agency as you at least seem to, though, in any sort of fiction.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> I think I know what you mean when you’re talking about character agency in fiction. However, ultimately, what happens in the fiction happens because that’s what the author decides to happen. So although the characters may say “This all happened because Pandora opened the box” and within the fiction that may be accurate....in truth, it all happened because the author wanted it to.




Ah, if only it were that easy to get the characters to do what you want them to do, say centuries of novelists. Sure, if you're writing some sort of allegory, you can yank your characters around a fair amount, because they're symbols and not people; anything else, though ... they'll fight you if you try.



hawkeyefan said:


> And if we were talking about fiction, I’d say that this distinction is pedantic and annoying.




I believe I've been called pedantic. Everyone who has known me ever is shocked. Shocked, I tell you! </sarcasm>

I'm not trying to be pedantic, honest, and I'm absolutely not endeavoring to be annoying. I'm a failed writer (among other failings) and I've studied this a lot. I see the character as a thing that exists and is different from the player--and my thinking here parallels my experience. Not everyone plays the way I do, or thinks the way I do; but I think the way I do.



hawkeyefan said:


> But instead, we’re talking about a game with multiple participants who all contribute to the fiction. So understanding who establishes what and how is kind of important, and to keep returning to the idea that characters are deciding anything doesn’t help.
> 
> How does the GM establish fiction? In what ways is he limited in doing so? What about players; how do they establish fiction? How are they limited in doing so?
> 
> These are the relevant questions.




Those are indeed relevant questions. I'll take a shot. I'll try to keep it as system-neutral as I can, and I will explicitly not be talking about published adventures--especially long ones.

The GM establishes fiction by framing the scenario for play. This can stretch all the way up to worldbuilding, but it needn't do so. It usually will include at least one instigating event--which can be a parallel to the "Declare Badness" MC moves in AW. It usually will include at least some facts of the setting, such as an apocalypse, or Elder Gods, or things of that nature, but there are games that are effectively in the here-and-now. The limitations will vary somewhat, depending on the game being played--a Keeper in Call of Cthulhu has a lot more freedom to prep an adventure to go where they want it to, an MC in Adventure World will be expected to stick to their Fronts and only make moves that make sense in the established fiction. The GM is usually responsible for at least most of the NPCs that will appear, and is expected to prepare them (there are differences what "prepare them" means, system-to-system).

The players establish fiction by creating (or generating) the main characters, and by determining those characters' actions. Some (or most) of those actions will only need to be declared; where more is needed--where the outcome is in doubt--there will be some system of resolving that doubt, such as rolling dice or drawing cards. Like the GM, the player is limited by the rules of the game. The player will at least be able to narrate their character's actions if the resolution is in their favor; in some systems they are able to declare outcomes or other facts in the fiction (such as the Crown of Revel being in the box). Often (maybe usually?) the players are limited by things their characters can do, or at least by things their characters interact with or know about, but that is not always the case. They are usually limited in their ability to narrate the results when action-resolutions go against them, but there are systems that at least occasionally allow the players to narrate the results of failed action resolutions.

That seems like at least a start.


----------



## hawkeyefan

@prabe To clarify, I wasn't saying you were being pedantic or annoying. Sorry if that’s how it seemed.

What I meant was that I understand the idea of “characters writing themselves” and that pointing out that an author controls the fiction and not the characters would be pedantic and annoying in that light. 

But the distinction becomes important for a RPG because there are multiple participants involved in authoring the fiction.


----------



## prabe

hawkeyefan said:


> @prabe To clarify, I wasn't saying you were being pedantic or annoying. Sorry if that’s how it seemed.
> 
> What I meant was that I understand the idea of “characters writing themselves” and that pointing out that an author controls the fiction and not the characters would be pedantic and annoying in that light.
> 
> But the distinction becomes important for a RPG because there are multiple participants involved in authoring the fiction.




I apologize for misunderstanding you, but I assure I was genuinely amused, not bothered or offended--being both annoying and pedantic is well within my ordinary range, and I know it.

I'll admit I approach TRPGs more like writing fiction than anything else. Mostly, I suspect, because that's the model I have and the language I think in. Having done group-collaborative writing and played in garage bands, playing a TRPG feels to me like being part of that sort of gestalt.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> The fiction that emerges is a property of play and the entire point of the play. I'm surprised you can be so dismissive of it.



I'm not dismissive of it. I'm trying to talk about _who gets to create it_. I am noting that different approaches to RPGing give different participants more or less authority, or agency in that respect. 



prabe said:


> The player in AW knows the GM will make a choice but has no control over what the decision will be.
> 
> The player in 5E knows the GM will make a choice but has no control over what the decision will be.
> 
> I do not see a difference between the two conditions. I do not see a difference in agency.





prabe said:


> So, how exactly does the player control which choice the GM makes, or even know what the GM's options are? The GM in AW doesn't seem to me (as someone who's just read the rules a couple times) to be all that much more constrained than the DM in 5E.



If the player has his/her PC *go aggro *- that is, threaten someone - and rolls 10+, then the participant who controls the threatened character has to make a choice, either to suck up the threat or to relent.

That is how the player controls the decision.

Likewise, and as we've already seen in this thread with the example of Marie discovering that Plover is the real threat, a sucessfull roll to *read a charged situation* allows the player to require the MC to answer a particular question.

In the 5e example, the player does not get to force the GM to tell them eg _what's the biggest threat here_ (apparently the guards). Nor to force the burgomaster to either relent or be set back (in the OP the burgomaster id not relent and was not set back in any fashion).  The difference seems pretty evident to me.



prabe said:


> So, the AW player Goes Aggro and rolls. 10+ The BurgerMaster sucks it up (breaks) and calls for the guards.



This is what makes me think you are not familiar with the rules of AW. Because you are not describing the Burgomaster sucking it up. From AW p 193:

If the target forces the character’s hand and sucks it up, that means that the character inflicts harm upon the target as normal, determined by her weapon and her subject’s armor. At this point, the player can’t decide not to inflict harm, it’s gone too far for that.​
Calling for your guards isn't sucking it up.



prabe said:


> On a 7-9, the BurgerMaster "barricades himself securely in" and calls for the guards



From p 194, here is an example of "barricading in" on a 7-9:

Keeler’s hidden in a little nest outside Dremmer’s compound, she’s been watching the compound courtyard through the scope of her rifle. When I say that this guy Balls sits down in there with his lunch, “there he is,” her player says. They have history. “I blow his brains out.” She hits the roll with a 9, so I get to choose. I choose to have him barricade himself securely in: “no brains, but he leaves his lunch and scrambles into the compound, squeaking. He won’t be coming out again any time soon.” I make a note to myself, on my front sheet for Dremmer’s gang, that Balls is taking himself off active duty. I think that we might never see him again.​
In the OP example the burgomaster does not retreat or fall back. Rather, he brings pain down on the players (in the form of the guards). That is not an example of a 7-9 on *go aggro*.

If the burgomaster, in the face of the insult, runs from the players into his secret chamber and surrounds himself by guards - like US Presidents do with their secret service agents in all those films about attacks on the White House - _that_ would be an example of barricading himself in. But the OP manifestly did not do that.



prabe said:


> I don't see how the character's success/failure on a resolution determining whether the door is trapped--meaning literally that the trap is present on one result and not on another--can be anything other than meta.



What do you mean by "meta"?

In Classic D&D (OD&D, B/X, Gygax's AD&D) the question of whether or not there are monsters behind the door, or down the corridor, can depend on the roll of a wandering monster die. That's how those games work - some fiction is authored in advance, some fiction is authored on the spot in accordance with the mechanics. Appendix C of Gygax's DMG has charts not only for wandering monsters but for random wilderness encounters which can include monsters in their lairs, ruins, castles, etc. None of those things, in the fiction, _comes into being because the PCs encounter them_. But they are authored, at the table, on the spot and in the moment of play.

In AW, likewise, or in Burning Wheel, or Maelstrom Storytelling, or Cortex+ Heroic, some fiction is authored in advance - eg in AW PCs have gear lists and relationships and there is at least some local geography established and probably some prominent adversarial NPCs also - and some fiction is authored on the spot in accordance with the mechanics.

That's how a RPG works. There is, and never has been, any requirement that _all elements of the fiction which have, in the fiction, a causal origin prior to current events_ must _be authored in advance of the current moment of play_. 



prabe said:


> If doors are only ever trapped if you look for traps, why would you ever look for traps? That's probably not the best example ... Anyway, I actually do understand the playstyle, and I even see the appeal of something like Gumshoe where you always find what's there to be found but you might not understand it correctly (and I realize that Gumshoe might not be exactly the right style of play, where the declaration "I open the box, looking for the Crown of Revel" is an action-declaration that can be resolved, which on a result favoring the player means the Crown of Revel is in the box--I can see the appeal of that, too-- finding the Crown of Revel isn't the point, figuring out what to do with it is).



Frankly everything here suggests a radical failure to understand how to play a game like AW or BW or Cortex+ Heroic or any game that does not depend on discovering the content of the GM's notes.

I posted an actual play example upthread. Here it is again:



pemerton said:


> In one of our BW sessions the PCs had arrived at a tower which - as per established backstory - had been the home of the PC sorcerer when he was studying under his brother's tuition. As part of the same backstory, the tower had been attacked by orcs and the brother, in trying to summon a Storm of Lightning to fight off the orcs, had failed in his casting and been possessed by a balrog. (How the PC had escaped to actuall be there at the beginning of the campaign, some years after those events, had not and still has not been established.) Now the tower was ruined and abandoned.
> 
> The player, at about this point, told us more of his PC's backstory: while living in the tower, as a pupil of his brother, he had been working on a nickel-silver mace called the falcon's claw. But it had been left behind when the tower fell to the orcs. Now that the PC was back, he wanted to recover the mace. So they searched the tower for it. Mechanically, this was a Scavenging check.
> 
> The check failed. So I - as GM - had to narrate some adverse outcome. I narrated that the PCs did find something, but not the mace. Rather, they found - in the area of the tower which had been the brother's workshop - a stand of black arrows, very like the one broken arrow still carried by the elven PC in memory of his former captain who had been slain by an orc shooting that arrow.
> 
> The ensuing play established that the brother had made those black arrows. The significance of this was that it revealed that the brother's evil _preceded_, in some fashion at least, his possession by a balrog. He had already been making cursed arrows that orcs would take and use.



In structural resolution terms, this is strictly parallel to the box and the Crown. And the point, absolutely, is to find the mace. But that didn't happen. Instead the PC learned unwelcome truths about his brother.

Why would a player in an AW game hae his/her PC look for traps? Because - as his/her PC - s/he wants to know what is going on around her. What the threats are. What the opportunities are. The point of play, in AW, isn't to _beat the GM's scenario_. The is no "GM's scenario". The point is to inhabit a character in a shared fiction.

As a player in AW (or BW, or in a lighter game like Cortex+ Heroic or 4e D&D) you know that the GM will be throwing adversity at you. That's his/her job. If you want your PC to be safe then you don't play the game! But if you're playing, there's going to be adversity. It's not as if you can protect your PC from adversity by never looking for it!



prabe said:


> "Misdirect" seems to mean one of two things. It either means describe what you're doing in terms of the fiction (as in, having NPCs put PCs in different places, rather than saying "they separate you"--the principle is, IIRC "Make your move but never speak its name" or something close) or it means something more like narrative sleight-of-hand, where the connections between cause and effect, action and result, are muddied, to keep the players (and I suspect ideally the GM) guessing. The former is less about transparency than immersion; the latter is ... well, I don't entirely grasp what the point is, but I don't think it can be fairly be said to be about transparency.





pemerton said:


> Describing things in-the-fiction is good GMing, I agree. I don't think of it as "misdirecting," though.



Vincent Baker is crystal clear what he means by "misdirection". He means overlaying real-world authorship decisions with in-fiction explanation. Perhaps you don't like his word choice, for whatever reason. That doesn't make his explanation any less crystal clear.

You seem to have confused two MC principles. _Never speak your moves name _is one of them. That is an instruction to narrate fiction (eg, from p 111, "Maybe your move is to *separate them*, but you should never just say that. Instead, say how Foster’s thugs drags one of them off, and Foster invites the other to eat lunch with her.") _Misdirect_ is an instruction to  narrate fiction that establishes in-fiction causation and connections. I already quoted this text from pp 110-11:

Of course the real reason why you choose a move exists in the real world. Somebody has her character go someplace new, somebody misses a roll, somebody hits a roll that calls for you to answer, everybody’s looking to you to say something, so you choose a move to make. Real-world reasons. However, misdirect: pretend that you’re making your move for reasons entirely within the game’s fiction instead. . . . 
Make like it’s the game’s fiction that chooses your move for you, and so correspondingly always choose a move that the game’s fiction makes possible.​
There is no muddling of connections between cause and effect. Everyone at the table knows that the cause of the GM saying stuff is that something happened in the real world. Just like, in the OP, the players know that the reason the GM describes the burgomaster being angry is because a player described his/her PC as insulting the burgomaster. The point is that the GM is directed _not to talk about those things._ Rather, the GM is directed to _narrate fiction that illustrates causal and similar (eg constitutive) connections_. So, eg, in the example of play when Marie learns who is the biggest threat the GM establishes that Mill is 12 and no threat.

I have no idea what you see as non-transparent here. Quite the contrary: the player now knows that Mill is 12 and no threat. And that Plover is a threat. The fiction is not secret from the players. This is a fundamental difference between games like AW, BW, Cortex+ heroic, Prince Valiant, etc - games which in some other respects are quite different - and RPGing-as-puzzle-solving.







prabe said:


> The fiction that emerges is a property of play and the entire point of the play. I'm surprised you can be so dismissive of it.



I'm not dismissive of it. I'm trying to talk about _who gets to create it_. I am noting that different approaches to RPGing give different participants more or less authority, or agency in that respect. 



prabe said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The character didn't change the ficiton. The character exists within the fiction and does not author it.
> 
> The GM changed the fiction. S/he did so because s/he was prompted to by the player's action declaration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if I wanted to play the game and ignore the character I'd play something like Gloomhaven or Eldritch Horror or Pandemic (all of which I like, for what that's worth) where the "character" is just a bundle of abilities with a picture attached. That is neither how nor why I play TRPGs, though.
> 
> To be more responsive, at the same level of remove: The fiction changed as a result of the player's decision, which rounds to the player changing the fiction. Since the decision ended up being an action that the character takes, it works just as well to think of the character changing the fiction, since the action and the result are connected in the fiction.[
Click to expand...


As @Ovinomancer has already explained, the first paragraph of this is just flat-out wrong.

The second paragraph is ironic, given your repeated complaints about the use of the word "misdirect". Because you seem to have been successfully misdirected!

_Fiction can change as a result of a player's decision_ without _the player changing the fiction_. In the post of mine you quoted I even gave an example: the GM changed the fiction because prompted to be a decision made by the player.

As far as the character's action is concerned, that doesn't change the fiction. The character's action was _to insult the burgomaster_. The effect of that was _to anger the burgomaster_. Unless you're playing a RPG with 4th-wall/meta aspects to is fiction (Over the Edge is an example), character's can't change the fiction because they exist within it, they don't operate upon it.

It is my opinion that all decent RPGing instructional text is written having regard to that basic fact. It tells real people what things they should do or say in the real world. It doesn't pretend that imaginary things are having real causal impact.



prabe said:


> How'd the characters get there? What'll they do next? Aren't the answers to those questions fictional content? Didn't the players/characters have input to those answers? Aren't the characters in the fiction trying to figure out what's going on in the fiction?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In the example of the Crown or Revel being/not being in the box, there's no way the character has any control of that, whether the Crown being in the box is decided by the GM, erm, deciding, or as the result of an action-resolution check (where a success allows the player to put the Crown in the box). I'm not inclined to deny that I find it easier to play if I'm not having to think so much outside my character, nor that as a GM I find it easier if the facts of the world (such as whether the Crown of Revel is in the box) are in my head as opposed to yet-undertermined, but I don't think I've been impervious to the idea that others might prefer it otherwise.



in the fiction, yes, characters are trying to work things out. In the fiction, they typically don't create the answers to those questions.

This resembles the real world, where - when I eg pan for gold in a creek - I didn't make it true or false that there is gold in the creek bed.

But I am not talking about _causation in the fiction_, ie_ imagind causation_, which in most RPGs correlates pretty straightforwardly with causation as it occurs in the real world.

I am talking about _causation in the real world_. Or, in other words, _how fiction is created_.

As I replied to @Campbell already upthread, in a game like BW where the question of whether or not the Crown is in the box is answered by resolving the declaration _I look in the box for the Crown_, this does not require the player to think outside of his/her PC. And when you say "as a GM I find it easier if the facts of the world (such as whether the Crown of Revel is in the box) are in my head as opposed to yet-undertermined" what you are saying is that you prefer GM over player agency in respect of those sorts of elements of the fiction.



prabe said:


> it makes as much sense to have the player narrate what's in the box as it does to have the GM do so--but they lead, I think, to different types of stories emerging.



Maybe, maybe not. No one in this thread has posted actual play examples that would bear on this.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> The rulebook I'm looking at says, "When you Go Aggro on someone, roll+hard. On a 10+, they have to choose: force your hand and suck it up, or cave and do what you want. On a 7-9, they can instead choose 1:"
> 
> That tells me it's not the player choosing, it's the GM, so the player really has no control over the outcome. The example I laid out is book-legal, though it'd be horrible GMing--and I never said it was otherwise.



Yeah, the point is that the player forces the GM to pick one of the two.  This doesn't exist, ever, in 5e.  Either the GM has the NPC agree with your demand, or the NPC suffers whatever you've threatened.  The Burgomaster calling for the guard is neither of these -- it's not a book-legal move by the GM.

The key is force your hand and suck it up -- this means they choose the "or else" and that "or else" happens to them.  The nature of AW means that Go Aggro requires an 'or else.'  That's missing in the OP, but given that the player in question immediately tried to take the Burgomaster hostage, I went with that as the "or else."  That's the nature of Go Aggro, on a success, you either give in or you suck up the "or else."





> Oh, yeah, they're different games, aiming at generating/enabling different stories, and I have no doubt that Baker played in some deeply dissatisfying games in other systems before he wrote his own.
> 
> I don't think I've been unclear that published adventures, especially adventure paths, are problematic for character agency--for the characters mattering much, even--and I also don't think I've been unclear that 5E is designed to enable play through published adventures. So, it's probable that many players' experience of 5E is going to be ... less than ideal. I think, though, that there's support in the game to play differently; I don't think 5E is limited to that sort of play.
> 
> 
> 
> The rulebook I have says "Force your hand and suck it up." BurgerMaster calls for guards and other party member attacks (tries to take him hostage). That genuinely doesn't sound all that incongruent to me. Yes, it's bad GMing in AW if any result of Go Aggro will have that result, and I've never said otherwise; I've just said it's possible to GM that way (and that the play examples in the book don't discourage it, actually seem to suggest it).



What did the Burgomaster suck up?  What bad happened because he refused?  Your example has no bad for the Burgomaster.  It has good -- the odds shift in his favor.  Choosing this outcome isn't just bad GMing -- it's not following the rules.

And, no, the example in the book follows this exactly -- the GM chooses to have the NPC not accede and so he gets brain fried.  Since the specific move used doesn't require going loud as part of the Go Aggro (which usually does), the PC was able to leave the brain fried NPC without starting a fight with the henchmen.  Seems like exactly what needed to happen -- now the NPC has a serious level of Harm, which will make any future engagement easier for the PCs until the NPC can reasonably get help (if the PCs, for example, don't press for a while, I can see that Harm rolling off).




> Yeah, I understand the mechanics, and I understand the ... rationalization of the mechanics--how the mechanics are meant to reflect/shape the emergent story.
> 
> OTOH: A 5E DM could randomly roll to determine if a door was trapped--the old school-ish random dungeons seem a likely application for this. He'd be finding out if it was trapped about the same time as the PCs. That's not my prefered playstyle, but it's not meta the same way as having it hinge on the outcome of a Perception check (or the equivalent).



Randomly determining if a door is trapped is nothing like what I described play in PbtA as, regarding the fiction of a trapped door.  It's not random.



> Yeah. The GM's job is to place obstacles in the characters' way, and to present plausible opposition. That's ... pretty close to universal (there might be edge cases but I don't think they're the focus of discussion). Without the obstacles and/or opposition, there'd be nothing to center a story around--no decisions or actions that mattered. I think my sense is that having the world exist in a more or less objective sense (to use the most-current example, that door is trapped) makes it clearer that the GM is neither the obstacle nor the opposition; that seems to be true for me as a player, as well as as GM.
> 
> It's plausible I'm bouncing as much off Baker's writing as the game mechanics, but I did come to a similar conclusion about Fate (that the game needed the GM to be more antagonistic than I wanted to be), and that game is written ... more conventionally--and yes, I remember (I think) that you don't think Fate goes far enough.
> 
> I wouldn't say I've ever put my players through the wringer, but I would say the Masked Ones killed Imaktis, and more the Tundra Queen seems to have drawn their ire. The players have been coming back every other week for more than two years, so it's tempting to say they're digging it. There's probably some fundamental-ish difference in how we look at the stories that emerge from play, and the elements thereof.



FATE doesn't go far enough in telling you how to play it -- it's wishy-washy.  As I run a 5e game you'd be hard pressed to find isn't by the book, I don't have a problem with either style of game.  FATE just doesn't give enough insight into how it works and so appears to support multiple playstyles -- and it does, to a degree, but if you bring a D&D mindset, it's not going to work well.  That's my gripe with FATE -- it just soft pedals that it's actually a different game, so people bounce off of it.

Let see, the last few campaigns in 5e I've run -- a Big Plot game, which was a cosmic mystery, full of deep backstory to uncover and plotting tightly; a hex-crawl exploration game of a prison plane, not plotted but mapped pretty well; and a Sigil-based Planescape game where I don't yet know who the villain of the campaign will be, or what will be the focus, despite having run it for a bit over a year.  I don't have a "way" I see how stories emerge, I see lots of "ways."  And I'll use every one of them, if they're fun.  But, when I run/play Blades, and when I look at PbtA games, I see how they're used to tell stories and I use that way when I run those games.  I do different things when I run 5e.

Regardless, how you run games like FATE and Blades is not antagonistic, or petty jerkry.  It's actually far more disciplined and constrained than most of the other games I've tried, especially 5e.  Not to say that individuals aren't disciplined when running 5e, but the system has very little discipline.  It says, "the GM decides," and pretty much leaves it there, maybe with some vague handwaves at technique.  You can clearly see this in the official adventures, which are all over the map in approach and certainly don't leverage the ruleset very well most of the time.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> I can find examples that contradict this--at least at the author's conscious level. Just off the top of my head: King has said for decades that he never meant for the kid to die at the end of Cujo, and Alice Walker explicitly thanked the characters in The Color Purple for showing up.



No, you cannot find example of a character having agency.  What you can find examples of is an author surprising themselves as they imagine the character and make choices for it.




> I agree that confusing what the players do with what the characters do makes for problems. Those problems seem inevitable in games that allow (or encourage) PvP, which is why I pretty much don't allow it at my table. I don't think it's as confusing to think of the characters as having agency as you at least seem to, though, in any sort of fiction.



Treating characters as separate from their authors definitely leads to confusion, such as the argument that D&D supports agency for the characters.  Again, I invite you, next time you play, to not declare actions for your PC, to not make choices for the PC, and see exactly how much the character does on it's own.  You being surprised by what you decided in no way means the imaginary construct of the character made a choice.

By the way, this isn't a trap argument -- there's not something waiting to go, "aha, now you agree there's no character agency, you have to also accept...."  I like looking at where moments of agency exist in rulesets, not because it's a way to make some games better or worse than others, but because the game is where the agency is.  If you can point at those moments, you can better understand how to bring any given game system to bear on them in a way that improves the experience.  Or find out what doesn't work, and avoid that.  Either way, clearly analyzing where and how agency exists can only make playing a given game better.  More agency isn't better -- it's different.  Players in Blades enjoy more agency in lots of ways, but that comes at the cost of having to do more of the work to make the game play.  If you can see that, and know that, then you can get more out of Blades.  If you don't, you can still get lucky.  Neither outcome is any defense against just not enjoying the game, though, and that's a valid response.


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> No one in this thread has posted actual play examples that would bear on this.




You want play examples? See attached. Yeah. it's 16 pages. When I say my wife takes thorough notes, I am not kidding. Sorry. While there are moments--and this is something of a culmination of an arc--I almost never set them up or otherwise GM for them. The players declared zero facts about the world or the NPCs in this session. I'm curious if you'll think it looks like RPG-as-Puzzle, and what kind/s of agency--and how much--the players had.

I'll answer any questions needed for clarity.


----------



## Ovinomancer

prabe said:


> You want play examples? See attached. Yeah. it's 16 pages. When I say my wife takes thorough notes, I am not kidding. Sorry. While there are moments--and this is something of a culmination of an arc--I almost never set them up or otherwise GM for them. The players declared zero facts about the world or the NPCs in this session. I'm curious if you'll think it looks like RPG-as-Puzzle, and what kind/s of agency--and how much--the players had.
> 
> I'll answer any questions needed for clarity.



The fiction of play is well captured there, but the mechanics are not.  There are a few places where I can see a check probably happened, but nothing about how the game actually ran is there.  In other words, there's nowhere to identify moments of agency because that information is missing.

It is clear that your players are well engaged and enjoy your game.  That's great!


----------



## prabe

Ovinomancer said:


> The fiction of play is well captured there, but the mechanics are not.  There are a few places where I can see a check probably happened, but nothing about how the game actually ran is there.  In other words, there's nowhere to identify moments of agency because that information is missing.
> 
> It is clear that your players are well engaged and enjoy your game.  That's great!




I am sincerely grateful, almost constantly, for the players I have at the tables I DM for. What may not have come through was the extent to which they keep me engaged.

As to checks where dice were rolled--what I presume you mean by "mechanics" in this context--the ones that are clear to me are the tests to get library cards, and the stealth vs. perception stuff in the House of Masks. Those are probably the ones you saw. It is plausible-shading-to-probable that those were the only dice that hit the table outside of the combat. As I'm pretty sure I've said upthread, I do a lot of autosuccess and a lot of roleplay (and a very little bit of autofail--the example I used was the party trying to get a read on a godlike being). That implies there might have been checks interacting with the Orcphans, with the priest in the temple of The Joyful, at least twice with the Cracked Shields, maybe a check to recognize some spells when described by a non-spellcaster (that might have been rolled, actually, if the players didn't get it), with Black Irnod, maybe with the herbalist. And of course the combat where 5E does get a lot more granular. You can do a lot in 5E without calling for any checks, if you know the characters and you know the world.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> Ah, if only it were that easy to get the characters to do what you want them to do, say centuries of novelists. Sure, if you're writing some sort of allegory, you can yank your characters around a fair amount, because they're symbols and not people; anything else, though ... they'll fight you if you try.



This is all metaphor.

I'm trying to have a literal discussion about how RPGing can work.

In the OP example, it is _the GM _who decides the result of the PC's insult, and also the result of calling for the guards. And those decisions appear to be constrained only by prior, unilateral decisions the GM has made about those various NPCs. The player has no opportunity here to establish fiction, or even to constrain the fiction that the GM establishes.

That may be good; it may be bad. The fact that the OP posted about the session not playing out as well as hoped suggests that, on that occasion at least, it was not perfect.

In the AW play example, it is the player who is able to force the GM to choose whether Isle does what Marie wants, or instead has her brain fried. It is the player who is able to force the GM to decide that Plover is the most dangerous of the NPCs will Mill is a non-violent child of 12. That is a higher degree of agency in respect of the shared fiction. And it is very transparent as to how and why the GM is making those decisions - ie they're forced by the rules of the game.

If, in my BW play example, the Scavenging check had succeeded then it would have been the player who authored the presence of the mace in the tower. Because it failed, it was me the GM who got to author what happened next. And I wrote in the black arrows.

We can see here different systems, which take different approaches to framing checks - BW uses "say 'yes' or roll the dice", AW uses "If you do it, you do it"; 5e D&D uses "if the GM wants to allow a check, s/he can" - and different approaches to establishing consequences - BW uses _intent-and-task_; AW uses various approaches for various moves, but the examples we've been looking at are _force the GM to make a decision_; 5e D&D uses _GM decides as s/he sees fit in light of previous unilateral unrevealed authorship_,

These different approaches produce different degrees of player agency in respect of the shared fiction. And not in some metaphorical sense - in the literal sense of _who gets to decide what is the case, and what happens next, in respect of the shared fiction_.



prabe said:


> I'll try to keep it as system-neutral as I can, and I will explicitly not be talking about published adventures--especially long ones.
> 
> The GM establishes fiction by framing the scenario for play. This can stretch all the way up to worldbuilding, but it needn't do so. It usually will include at least one instigating event--which can be a parallel to the "Declare Badness" MC moves in AW. It usually will include at least some facts of the setting, such as an apocalypse, or Elder Gods, or things of that nature, but there are games that are effectively in the here-and-now.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The GM is usually responsible for at least most of the NPCs that will appear, and is expected to prepare them (there are differences what "prepare them" means, system-to-system).
> 
> The players establish fiction by creating (or generating) the main characters, and by determining those characters' actions. Some (or most) of those actions will only need to be declared; where more is needed--where the outcome is in doubt--there will be some system of resolving that doubt, such as rolling dice or drawing cards. Like the GM, the player is limited by the rules of the game. The player will at least be able to narrate their character's actions if the resolution is in their favor; in some systems they are able to declare outcomes or other facts in the fiction (such as the Crown of Revel being in the box).



This is not system neutral.

There are many systems where the GM is not expected to prepare NPCs. Apocalypse World is one - see eg the actual play example where the GM makes up details about Mill as part of the process of action resolution. Classic Traveller is another - see eg the rules for resolution of Streetwise checks (Book 1, p :15 "The referee should set the throw required to obtain any item specified by the players (for example, the name of an official willing to issue licenses without hassle = 5+, the location of high quality guns at a low price = 9+).")

Your characterisation of the discovery Crown of Revel is not system neutral either. I don't know o any system in which a player can declare such an outcome. (I'm sure there are some; but I don't know them.) In Burning Wheel as in D&D a player can declare "I look in the box for the Crown of Revel". That is not a declaration of "a fact in the fiction". It is a declaration of an action, no different from "I stab the orc". What differentiates the two systems is _how the action is resolved._ In D&D, as typically played, the GM is expected to decide what follows from that action declaration, canonically at least by reference to his/her notes. In Burning Wheel, assuming that there is table consensus that the Crown _might_ be in the box given the established fiction, the GM is expected either to "say 'yes'" or to set a difficulty for an appropriate check (which could be anything from Scavenging to Box-wise to Crown of Revel-wise depending on the details of the context).

I don't fully understand why you seem so hesitant to address this as a matter of action resolution: _I look in the box for the Crown of Revel_. If you won't consider that action resolution, and various ways that a system might go about resolving it, you will not be able to understand how Burning Wheel works, or even how Streetwise works in Classic Traveller.



prabe said:


> You want play examples? See attached.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm curious if you'll think it looks like RPG-as-Puzzle, and what kind/s of agency--and how much--the players had.



I read the first page closely and skimmed the next five. It doesn't record anything about the procedures of play, so I can't tell for sure. What follows is conjecture based on your accounts upthread of how you approach RPGs.

My understanding from the list of Dramatis Personae is that the GM was playing the child Turlk and that a player was playing the character Joybell. I therefore conjecture that the player decided what questions Joybell asked Turlk, and that the GM made all the decisions about what Turlk said in response.

Two phrases stood out i particular on that first page: _we can’t glean from that where they’re from_ and _we have no way of knowing where their village was_. My guess, reinforced by your reply to @Ovinomancer, would be that this ignorance of the relevant elements of the fiction resulted from the GM making unilateral decisions about what Turlk knew and was able to convey.

If my guesses are correct then yes, this looks like RPGing-as-puzzle-solving, and I would say that the GM had almost all the agency in respect of the content of the shared fiction.

This impression is reinforced by a quick look at p 2, where another character who appears to be a NPC controlled by the GM - Jorly - provides information about the Cracked Shield tribe. This then appears to shape the next sequence of play - "We headed off to the Cracked Shields".

Reading on: while it's not clear, I gather that the GM made all the decisions about the compound and the elder called Rask. And decided to provide the players with information about The Masks. The sense of play involving solving puzzles is reinforced by this bit at the bottom of p 4: "We recognized those as Vicious Mockery and Toll the Dead -- which means psychic and necrotic damage. That confirms what Barnett told us about necrotic damage being good against them"

Then, very similar to @Lanefan's hypothetical upthread, we have a description of a street which I assume was all decided by the GM. Thus it would be the GM who established that the street has no place "at all helpful for Fiona and Orryk hanging out for a couple of hours and observing the place."

On page 6 we are told about "one of the most important conversations of Joybell’s life". This all appears to be driven by the GM - eg the idea of "vendetta" which I gather is the crux of it seems to come from a NPC being played unilaterally by the GM.

I didn't read the remaining 10 pages. The consistency of what appeared to be going on in the first 6 pages suggests that they are representative enough.


----------



## Numidius

Maxperson said:


> No I don't think it should be done, unless that's how you guys really love to play. For me and my group it would not only destroy a large portion of the game's mystery, but would drag us kicking and screaming out of immersion, turning D&D into a gamist game. I don't want to play a game of numbers when I roleplay. If I wanted that, I'd play a board game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it sounds like a horrible system(for me) that makes Blades more about being a game than roleplaying the character and immersing yourself in the story. The less often mechanics pull me out of the story the better.
> 
> 
> 
> So what. So AC has a mechanic. Without a specific score being given for that dragon, the players are more likely to make a bad decision with the dragon than with the Baron. One AC 16 is beatable. The other AC 22 is not. The players aren't going to know which is which from the description, "The dragon is armored." All of their knowledge of attack bonuses, spells and damage don't matter all that much, since they have no number to compare them to. Hell, that statement could even mean that this dragon wears some sort of barding that makes it even harder to hit.
> 
> 
> 
> You're basically arguing that the player not knowing whether they need a 14 or higher to hit or need a natural 20 to hit, gives them an idea of their odds and how things work. That's ridiculous. The odds vary so wildly between those two points that any group that relies on them thinking that they "have an idea of the odds." deserves the TPK that they will eventually walk into.
> 
> 
> 
> Fat lot of good that will do the PCs' corpses if they walk into a dragon fight needing natural 20's to hit.
> 
> 
> It's even more clearly defined. Instead of the wildly vague and destructive 14 to natural 20 to hit, they have crystal clear knowledge that the Baron is insane and will be very highly likely to have them tortured or killed if they insult him.
> 
> 
> 
> This is wrong. With only the knowledge in the OP, I know with crystal clarity to not even attempt intimidation. Trying to intimidate someone who is insane and would react with lethal force to an attempt at intimidation would be stupid, and I'm not stupid. I also know with crystal clarity that deception is pretty risky, but not as risky as intimidation. Someone that insane and touchy about things will probably react poorly to being lied to, but probably not as badly as if I tried to intimidate him. Persuasion would absolutely be the best way to go, IF I even want to risk a conversation with a madman, which I probably don't.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do. Intimidation = AC 22. I'm very likely to end up dead and take my party down with me. Deception would AC 18ish. Possibly winnable, but still risky. Persuasion would be AC 16. We can win this one, but it's not guaranteed. It's the least risky.
> 
> I have a clear enough picture of the Baron to make those assessments and assign AC equivalents to the social skills.
> 
> 
> Which is why I'm not going to do something so stupid as to insult a crazy, insult sensitive ruler and risk a reaction with no roll. If the players use their brains even a little bit, it's really easy to avoid auto failures in social situations. That leaves only auto successes and having to roll the dice.



I find your reasoning insightful from your perspective as DM. 
I nonetheless think that one strenght of a "Gm decides resolution" is the possibility to indulge in scenes like the OP and have a tense dialogue with a "mad" ruler and the Party on his methods of ruling, with a crescendo of sensations of menace, threat, conflict, without the urge to rely on dice rolls or auto-fails immediately. 
Basically, old good roleplay exploring character of an Npc... and PCs, of course, who'd be going to use their Brains both in and out of char, in order to determine difficulty of eventual rolls, while also elaborating an actual first person speech in front of an audience, including the menacing guards of the Baron. 

Brains, will, presence, maybe a bit of show off to intimidate the guards first... something like that.


----------



## Lanefan

Been meaning to get back to this for a while...sorry about the delay.


pemerton said:


> Says whom?
> 
> Are you able to understand that there are different ways of playing RPGs?



I'm able to understand that there's different ways of playing different types of games.  That said, there's a very real chance I define RPG differently than you do.



> Who has agency over the fiction in a play? Not the actors. In the case of a prop. either the director, the producer or the playwright, depending on the detais of the production.



Even if the actors are writing their own lines (or improvising)?



> So can you not see that, if a RPG is approached the way that you describe, _the players are not exercising agency in respect of the content of the fiction?_
> 
> Whether or not one has a certain preference, _isn't the analysis crystal clear?_
> 
> But aren't you simply saying here that _you prefer a game in which the players do not have agency in respect of certain aspects of the shared fiction?_ Such as the contents of boxes that their PCs open.



Fundamental disagreement here: determining the heretofore unknown contents of a box is not an agency players get to have in an RPG unless a player's PC put the contents in there in the first place.

A game that gives players that agency has moved away from what I see as an RPG (in which one Plays a Role, that being of your PC) and into shared worldbuilding, which is something very different: a player is no longer simply playing the role of a character in a setting but is also given the responsibility of determining elements of and within that setting, which any player worth his-her salt will very quickly take blatant advantage of.

There's a reason a GM's role includes referee.



> Are you really saying that you are unable to comprehend that there are other approaches?



Comprehend? Yes.  Accept as being valid? Not so much.



> This is a bit like having a conversation about which side of a car the steering wheel is on, and which sort of turn yields an obligtion to give way, and having someone respond to an Australian that, _yes, I understand, the steering wheel is on the left and one yields when turning lefft. _As if they are literally unable to comprehend that there are parts of the world that have different having different traffic conventions than those that prevail in North America.



Again, difference between comprehension (I've driven numerous times in the UK) and acceptance. I mean, when in Rome do as the Romans do and all that, but from a Canadian standpoint I reserve the right to say it's nuts even as I do it; and don't blame the British at all if they say the same in reverse while over here.



> Are literally unable to comperehend that there are approaches to RPGing in which the action resolutoin _I look in the box fro the Crown of Revel_ is determined by a check, with success meaning that the PC finds the Crown in the box when s/he looks, and failure meaning that the GM narrates something different from that which is in some fashion adverse to the PC?



I'm dubious about accepting that as a valid way to roleplay, in that there's no internal setting consistency, no continuity, and therefore nothing to base any long-term in-character thoughts and-or memories on.

On reaching a new valley: _I look in the valley for the village of Terynia_. Action resolution succeeds and suddenly there's a village there; but for some reason we were never told about it before the trip even though in theory it's been there all along; and had we known or even been able to speculate about its existence sooner we might very well have done things differently.

Also as a system it's broken as hell the minute the players don't severely self-restrain, which IMO they shouldn't have to do.



> Given that, in this context, _agency over the shared fiction _and _authority in respect of the shared fiction_ or _authorship of the shared fiction _are all synonyms, I don't understand your contrast.
> 
> That the latter two are synonyms (in this context) is evident in the fact that _author _and _authority _are cognate words. As far as the first is concerned - if the players can't, via the procedures of game play, bring it about that the shared fiction is or contains (say) X rather than (say) Y, they manifestly are not exercising agency in respect of it.



They're not all quite synonymous.

The last two are, but the first - agency over the shared fiction - is not.  As a player I have agency over the shared fiction inasmuch as my PC is part of the shared fiction and I as its player get to decide what that character does and in many cases how it does so.  But I don't have authorship or agency over the setting or its elements, and nor should I.

Shared fiction = setting + PC actions/words + NPC actions/words.  The GM controls the first and third of these; the players collectively the second.

Story = shared fiction + time [+ story, every time this equation is run after the first time]



> The contrast emerges pretty clearly in the OP's situation. The player, in that situation, clearly had the power to trigger the GM to reveal the GM's prior conception of the burgomaster - this is in fact exactly what happened when the insult by the PC led the GM to narrate the burgomaster's response. But pretty clearly the player was not exercising agency over the content of the shared fiction: it seems pretty clear that the player wanted the shared fiction to contain a burgomaster who was _cowed _or _chastised _or _rebuked, _or in some other, roughtly similar way put back into his box by the PC's harsh remark. But the player had no chance to bring this about. Which is to say, the player was not exercising agency over the shard fiction.
> 
> As I have said to Lanefan, one may or may nor prefer a game in which players exercise this sort of agency. But I am not talking here about preferences.



Well, yes you are, in that oftentimes a great deal of what you post screams your preferences out for all to hear.  I merely try to counter this by doing the same, only perhaps making it a bit more obvious that I'm so doing.


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> My point is twofold. First, i_f the GM is deciding what's in the box_ then the player is not exercising agency over that component of the shared fiction. And obviously is not. Yet there are posters here - @prabe, @Lanefan - who are asserting the contrary.



Of course not. That part of the fiction is not the players' to decide.

The players' collective agency decides whether one or more PCs pay any attention to the box and whether a PC then tries opening the box.  Both of these things affect the continuing shared fiction, in that if the players/PCs ignore the box then the Crown is not found and things in the fiction have to proceed on that basis (and important to note: they have to proceed on that basis whether the GM so desires or not; she has to neutrally deal with the curveball of the Crown not being found even if her story ideas expect that it will be).


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> In Burning Wheel as in D&D a player can declare "I look in the box for the Crown of Revel". That is not a declaration of "a fact in the fiction". It is a declaration of an action, no different from "I stab the orc".



In fact in both systems those two action declarations are very different from each other.

"I look in the box" and "I stab the orc" are the same, in that each identifies an attempted interaction with an already-known piece of the fiction: the box and the orc are each already present.

However, "I look in the box for the Crown of Revel" tries to bring in another element, that being the Crown, the presence or absence of which remains yet unknown to the players.  In my view, saying the words "for the Crown of Revel" does nothing but add flavour; and while adding flavour is always cool in and of itself it has no other relevance.

Put another way, the only mechanically relevant bit of that declaration is "I look in the box", because the box is all that the PC/player knows to be there. On this declaration, then, the GM resolves the action by saying yes if there's no obstacle to opening the box (and then almost certainly narrates what's inside) or rolls the dice if there's some obstacle to opening the box e.g. it's locked or it's not immediately clear just how the box opens.



> What differentiates the two systems is _how the action is resolved._ In D&D, as typically played, the GM is expected to decide what follows from that action declaration, canonically at least by reference to his/her notes. In Burning Wheel, assuming that there is table consensus that the Crown _might_ be in the box given the established fiction, the GM is expected either to "say 'yes'" or to set a difficulty for an appropriate check (which could be anything from Scavenging to Box-wise to Crown of Revel-wise depending on the details of the context).



As everyone seems to agree that part of the GM's job is to set obstacles and challenges (right?  We're all agreed on this?), if the GM has no way of knowing where the Crown is ultimately going to be found how can she lay down any obstacles to finding it?  How can she set traps, locks, guards, and other assorted challenges if she doesn't know where to put them?  How can she set red herrings and misdirections when for all she knows she might in the process unknowingly be steering the PCs right to it?

This is what I mean when I say giving players control of setting elements strongly fights against - or even outright prevents - setting consistency.


----------



## pemerton

Lanefan said:


> Of course not. That part of the fiction is not the players' to decide.



I assume you are talking here about your table.

At other tables, which adopt different conventions and different rules, that may not be true. At those tables, therefore, the players would have greater agency over the content of the shared fiction. They would be deciding more things about it.



Lanefan said:


> "I look in the box" and "I stab the orc" are the same, in that each identifies an attempted interaction with an already-known piece of the fiction: the box and the orc are each already present.
> 
> However, "I look in the box for the Crown of Revel" tries to bring in another element, that being the Crown, the presence or absence of which remains yet unknown to the players.  In my view, saying the words "for the Crown of Revel" does nothing but add flavour; and while adding flavour is always cool in and of itself it has no other relevance.
> 
> Put another way, the only mechanically relevant bit of that declaration is "I look in the box"



Again, I have to assume that you are talking here about your table. Because what you say here is _literally false_ of some RPGs (eg Burning Wheel, Cortex+ Heroic).



Lanefan said:


> As everyone seems to agree that part of the GM's job is to set obstacles and challenges (right?  We're all agreed on this?), if the GM has no way of knowing where the Crown is ultimately going to be found how can she lay down any obstacles to finding it?



Trivially. I and other GMs the world over are doing it day in, day out.

I have many actual play reports on this forum. They will give you examples of how it is done. Here's a simply imagined illustration:
the player declares _I look in the box for the Crown of Revel_. The GM sets an appopriate difficulty, using whatever framework the system establishes (eg Burning Wheel has default obstacles for Scavenging tests; Cortex+ has the Doom Pool being rolled to establish the oppositiong to this sort of action declaration). If the check succeeds, the PC finds the Crown in the box; if the check fails, the box is trapped and the PC triggers the trap. After that is resolvd - as is appropriate to the system - we keep playing to see if and where the Crown might be found.



Lanefan said:


> I'm able to understand that there's different ways of playing different types of games.  That said, there's a very real chance I define RPG differently than you do.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Fundamental disagreement here: determining the heretofore unknown contents of a box is not an agency players get to have in an RPG unless a player's PC put the contents in there in the first place.
> 
> A game that gives players that agency has moved away from what I see as an RPG (in which one Plays a Role, that being of your PC) and into shared worldbuilding, which is something very different: a player is no longer simply playing the role of a character in a setting but is also given the responsibility of determining elements of and within that setting, which any player worth his-her salt will very quickly take blatant advantage of.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm dubious about accepting that as a valid way to roleplay, in that there's no internal setting consistency, no continuity, and therefore nothing to base any long-term in-character thoughts and-or memories on.
> 
> On reaching a new valley: _I look in the valley for the village of Terynia_. Action resolution succeeds and suddenly there's a village there; but for some reason we were never told about it before the trip even though in theory it's been there all along; and had we known or even been able to speculate about its existence sooner we might very well have done things differently.
> 
> Also as a system it's broken as hell the minute the players don't severely self-restrain, which IMO they shouldn't have to do.



This is a more long-winded of saying "at my table" while also showing that you have very little udnerstanding of how even a game like Classic Traveller (first published 1977) works, let alone something like Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World.

Everything I've quoted here - the unrelenting refusal to consider that action declaration might include _I look in the box for . . . _(which obviously does not require doing anything but playing a PC - it's pure actor stance); the inability to think of setting and world building beyond Gygax-era maps-and-key; the idea that sysetms will, indeed must, "break" if the players can declare these sorts of actions and have them resovled - screams _I learned to play D&D c 1980 and haven't looked beyond those boundaries in the 40 years since._

If that's what you're trying to convey, you're succeeding. If you want to have a conversation about what RPGIng might and can be, though, you going to have to at least contemplate that D&D c 1980 is not the be-all and end-all of RPGIng.


----------



## Numidius

prabe said:


> @Campbell I agree it is almost certainly not a game for me. As with BitD, my first reaction was to figure out how I could get a character killed quickly, which is probably about rejecting one or more premise (setting or something in the mechanics). I know myself well enough not to play the game when I get those kinds of messages from the depths.
> 
> I'm less disappointed about AW than about BitD. I really, really wanted--and kinda expected--to like BitD; I had no such expectations of AW, but I was curious. I suspect it's connected to some contrariness at my core: I really want to immerse in the character and engage with the setting and the story, and the harder a TRPG works to *make* me do those things, the harder I resist.
> 
> While I don't disagree that TRPGs have real differences, I also believe they have real similarities. They might have different priorities, but overall I think they have similar goals. I don't think that means the games are boring.
> 
> I really don't know where my approach to GMing comes from, other than trying to run games I'd kill to be a player in. That's not super-helpful, because I don't really know how, when, or where I developed my preferences as a player, either, because--as you point out--it's really not the way most of the games I would have played or read as a newer gamer would have played.



How would you describe, in plain words, the games you run, the story and exploration of setting and character? 

When I (used to) run Dungeon World, my players being challenge-oriented and true-neutral towards the setting elements and npcs, taught me to push very hard those elements against them in order to have relevance as opposition and matter story-wise, eventually reaching dramatic moments in which their choices would finally impact the (small) setting. 
Hard work; rewarding, but tiring: not in prep, I mean at the table. 


Running an investigative scenario in Trail of Cthulhu, instead, I enjoy very much how I can relax during play and follow the PCs exploring the setting, mixing prewritten stuff, improvisation, and their backgrounds. Pushing for dramatic scenes is not a frantic duty, is a pleasure I enjoy slowly.


----------



## prabe

Numidius said:


> How would you describe, in plain words, the games you run, the story and exploration of setting and character?




I have started posting my wife's notes in the Story Hour forum. Search for "Erkonin." I'll start Campaign 2 on Wednesday. You can (sort of) see for yourself, if you want.

To answer your question here: I ask the players for backstories for their characters. I start things off by putting the characters in the same place and time and throwing stuff at a fan. Once things are going I tie in both the individual characters' backstories and previous events in the campaign. I work to have multiple goals available for the party to pursue so they can choose among them. Some of those goals will derive from the characters' backstories (exploring character). Some of those goals will involve discovering things about the setting (exploring setting). I don't intentionally prep more than a session ahead, and anything that hasn't come up is subject to being changed if needed.

Is that responsive-ish?


----------



## Numidius

@prabe, partially. 
I see that's how you prep the campaign. I meant how's the mood of play: relaxed, fast&furious, occasionally dramatic, lots of combat or roleplay? More Gm exposition or Players talking at the table? More challenge oriented or directed by the whims of the party or focused around individual feelings?


----------



## prabe

First, I have six players at one table and five at another, and I like large tables (I cannot lie). Around the table, I probably do more than half of the talking, but not much more than half. The mood around the table varies quite a bit, both by time and by player--any player might sit up and fully engage at roughly any time, and one session might be more relaxed while the next might be more intense; I have had sessions with no combat back-to-back with sessions that were roughly all-combat. I'd be inclined to answer your last question by describing it as more goal-focused: the PCs have one or more goals they're working toward; however the PCs want to achieve those goals is up to them.


----------



## pemerton

prabe said:


> the PCs have one or more goals they're working toward; however the PCs want to achieve those goals is up to them.



How would you say this fits with the story transcript you posted upthread, which seemed to involve the players needing to learn from the GM (via their PCs interacting with various NPCs who were brought into the fiction unilaterally by the GM) in order to progress their goals?


----------



## prabe

pemerton said:


> How would you say this fits with the story transcript you posted upthread, which seemed to involve the players needing to learn from the GM (via their PCs interacting with various NPCs who were brought into the fiction unilaterally by the GM) in order to progress their goals?




That's a fair question.

First, every NPC (except Black Irnod, who runs the eponymous library in Pelsoreen) that came into the campaign [EDIT: in that session] did so as a result of the PCs' actions and/or decisions. They decided to go looking for temples where the Orcphans would be looked after, and while I'd prepped the Cracked Shields, if the party hadn't gone looking for them I would have allowed the prep to lie unused. While I don't doubt that the NPCs' existence seems unilateral to you, it doesn't feel that way from where I sit, and I don't think it feels unilateral from the players' perspective, either. I have pulled out my notebook for that campaign and looked at the session prep I had. There were the names of the orcphans, one longish paragraph about the Cracked Shields, covering only the first interaction in the session--the party going back and seeing if they wanted to help clean out the House of Masks wasn't something I anticipated in my prep. I see a line "other information from prior sessions applies" but it seems likely to mostly apply to the Masked Ones themselves and the libraries in Pelsoreen; I'd have to pull up other session notes to see why I had so much pending from prior sessions. It's probably because the party did something other than what I'd prepped for, or did something I'd prepped for in more detail than I'd expected.

Second, this is a highly research-intensive party. "Team Library" is a standing subset of the PCs. It's plausible that part of the reason there are so many libraries in the cities they've spent time in/around is because the party has gone looking for them (and it's made sense to me libraries would be there). Most of the stuff you've described them "needing to learn from the GM" emerged when they started looking for it. The narrative only reflects what did happen, not all the other things that could have happened if the PCs had chosen different paths or approaches.

I know you think the campaign is "RPG-as-puzzle" because the players don't have any direct way to alter things in the way you prefer--there's nothing like a declaration "I look for a cleric in the temples who's willing to take in these orcish orphans" that leads to action-resolution that might lead to there being at least one cleric in the temples willing to take in orcish orphans--but part of the reason I have reacted so strongly to that description is that I read "puzzle" as only having one solution. While I do not DM with a fixed solution in mind that the players must guess to proceed, I cannot prove it to you in retrospect because all I can point to is what the PCs did and what happened as a result thereof; I don't have notes showing alternative paths because I don't have notes for *any* path, even the one the PCs took. My notes for the session I posted, for example, are less than a page and a half of notebook paper; the session before is just over four; the session before that I can tell was one that ended early because the party found a way to teleport to Pelsoreen and I hadn't prepped the city in much more detail than "it exists."


----------

