Fog of War (reboot)

[cydmab]

I'll be very direct - avoiding the elf colony is taking on an objective and being prepared to meet it through no adversity. Am I too direct in thinking that when you guys avoided the colony, it was without interest in meeting adversity in doing so? I think I have quite a few examples of that from my own gaming history I could dredge up, anyway. Suffice to say, I think my moral penalty above doesn't actually work if the player still isn't interested in taking on any adversity (in the pursuit of his objective).

I was trying to do what I thought my character would logically do. There was a chance of Everybody Dies followed by Thousands of People Die Because We Failed Our Quest versus some vague hope that we maybe might learn something... but probally not because the "good" elves were mentally enfeebled. In fact the moral factor was how I persuaded the rest of the party to not go the camp - at least one other PC was willing to risk his life to find out what was in the camp, but I in character argued that satisfying our curiousity about the camp was not worth the risk to Our Quest. Thousands of lives depended on us.

I'm not even arguing that this was a "bad" situation, since it was a somewhat interesting choice. However, it did throw the GM for a bit of a loop and he had to improvise the next scene. He grabbed the monster manual, flipped through it, and gave us a wandering monster to fight. The trouble I think is with a certain preperation technique. When I GM a traditional game, I think of a scene, then I try to think of at least two reasonable responses the players might do. If I can't come up with at least two possibilities I usually change the scene to prompt a more interesting choice. If one of the player choices will "break" the game then I also adjust the situation. Then I do a small amount of prep work for each reasonable choice to minimize the amount of improv I need to do.

One of the problems with with fog of war is it makes it harder to predict what the players will do, undermining the above method. So you might accidently make a scene which is "boring" in that there is only one obvious choice (see my unicorn example above), or you might have players do strange things that you don't prep for (skipping the elf camp) or that totally break the game (run away from orc cave example might count).

-William

[Callan S.]

Hi Contra,

The thing about going from point A to point B (through fog) is that it becomes part of the challenge, atleast from a player perspective. You might be arguing that it makes them steer clear of the challenge area - I'd argue its actually too big a challenge for them because of the added fog. This is totally part of gamism - if somethings too big for you, you turn back. Not that the GM wont try to dare you a few extra times, heh.

What do you think? Fog doesn't so much obscure the objective but raises the player percieved difficulty high than the GM's original gauntlet intended? Any mutual ground there?


Going back to the book, I think I see the players A: Taking on a main objective (transport the books) and then B: Making sub objectives that they are certain need to be accomplished, like the books must be watched at all times (then C: doing moves like holding a book in one hand, where the impact occurs). I really feel a bit of excitement about the idea of throwing out a challenge and then players upping the ante in ways I would never have thought of. It sounds like pure gold! Does anyone have some structure ideas for laying this out?

[Callan S.]

Hi cydmab,

I'm still thinking the players choice should always lead to some resource being put at risk/burnt up. I get what you mean about unpredictability, but if the only options the player have are mechanically attached to resource risk, then regardless of what they choose it leads to good for play problems. I don't think your example is one of unpredictability - its an example of how you had a safe, no risk to resources option, and you used it. I don't see it so much as an issue with unpredictability, but with you having such an option to begin with*.

* Umm, and such an option has been in every single game I've played in. Don't think I'm enlightened when I write this, it's what I'm working out from this thread as we go through.

[cydmab]

Hmm... well it depends if "sacrificing a possible gain" counts as a "loss." By choosing to avoid the elves, we sacrificed any information they might have had.

What one might argue is that, psycologically, a sure loss is different from sacrificing an unknown gain. But at least in the elf case the decision to avoid the camp WAS interesting. This was a "successful" instance of fog-of-war play, where an interesting tactical choice was generated from the situation without the GM or player having to artificially set it up. There was a 5-10 minute debate among the PCs about what to do, with various opinions offered, ethical and strategic factors considered and weighed, etc. The problem however is that the choice we made was completely unexpected to the GM... in part because this even being a choice was unexpected by the GM, since from his full-information perspective there was no reason not to talk to the elves.

[Callan S.]

Hmm... well it depends if "sacrificing a possible gain" counts as a "loss." By choosing to avoid the elves, we sacrificed any information they might have had.

If that were the choice that ends the game in a win/lose situation, then the choice works out. But play was to continue, and it needs material to continue on. An absence of information they may or may not have had - there's not enough material there, and even if the GM thought of it (I wouldn't have, too vague to come to my mind in the midst of play), he choose a random encounter over it. I'd prefer a more concrete loss or potential loss (that isn't resolved instantly, just hanging diamaclese sword style over players), myself.

Side note: Actually, why haven't I ever thought of that - I'm so used to when something becomes at risk, it gets rolled for immediately. And then you just know. But if results put something at risk, but its rolled for latter - you spend that whole time not knowing, having to check every plan against this! Sorry, this side notes off topic - got too excited!

The problem however is that the choice we made was completely unexpected to the GM... in part because this even being a choice was unexpected by the GM, since from his full-information perspective there was no reason not to talk to the elves.

Ah, gotcha.

Well, if the only options you can take have resource risks/hits, then being unexpected isn't so much an issue but a boon. The next part of play is already layed out to a degree - the resource hit and its ongoing effects. And no one knows where play will go - that gets my pulse rate up!

You can almost see how the GM tried to do the same thing, using a random encounter, but IMO it falls flat (how did it feel in play?). That's because its just something the GM throws in there - its a total disconnect. While if the players take an option which they know has a resource hit and have evaluated it, it's totally connected! It's chock full of player consent, so if they take the hit, it results from their own protagonism. While with the random encounter, if a PC dies - it's cause the GM threw in a random encounter.

How would you address the issue of the GM not expecting the choice?

[cydmab]

Actually, I may have been unclear with the term "random encounter." On the one hand, the GM literally picked up the monster manual, flipped through it, then said "OK a day passes. Your scout comes down to tell you that there is big... thing... following you." This is followed by a cat-and-mouse game where we try to avoid it, but the manticore finds us anyway so we have a fight.

OTOH a) the GM used the encounter to introduce an NPC who joined in the fight to help us and b) it made sense given the setting and situation that we'd eventually be attacked by a random thing during our travels. It didn't feel fake (at least not overly fake) at the time, and might very well have just been the next encounter/bang on the list. I never did confirm whether the encounter was made up on the fly or whether it was planned. (Which is what I'd do as a GM if the players unexpected skipped an encounter. Just go on to the next automatic event)

This DID have the effect of being the third "combat" during the session however. We usually aim for about one fight per session. And during the next session we had zero combats. So pacing of fights got messed up a little.

The GM also decided to do a "Schoendinger's NPC" move on us, and a few sessions later we had another chance to talk to a camp of elves, this time after an npc (the npc that came with the manticore in fact) told us that he'd never seen evil elves "this far north." The other PCs/players insisted that we talk to them this time, so we did.

This trick, done so blatantly, did feel like it invalidated our previous strategic/moral choice to avoid the elves during our first chance. It didn't help that we had come up with three different solutions to "cure" the feebleminded elves and all of them completely, 100% failed. (Well, one provided a vague hint that might be useful. Although its also an example of getting a very vague piece of evidence and me as a player spinning a somewhat far-fetched story that incorporates this small fact)

As far as information versus mechanical resources, I guess in my view information IS a resource... and in a way the Fog of War situation makes it the most important resource.

[contracycle]

[What do you think? Fog doesn't so much obscure the objective but raises the player percieved difficulty high than the GM's original gauntlet intended? Any mutual ground there?[/quote]

There is convention that the movie monster should stay in the shadows as long as possible so that it remains "frightening", rather than being a problem to solve.  In this sort of state of semi-existence, the audience projects potential fears onto the "actual" monster.

In that regard yes I think the Fog does exaggerate fears. And if those fears reach such a pitch that the players resort to "if in doubt grenade it out"-type tactics, you get this staggering, jerky play that cydmad describes, in which the players regard absolutely everything with suspicion and dread.  The whole imaginary world has become the monster onto which fears are projected - often quite needlessly.

So yes I agree that the GM's challenge will likely be perceived as a higher difficulty than is intended.  And in turn that may trigger cautious, and possibly avoidant, behaviour on the part of the players.

The thing about going from point A to point B (through fog) is that it becomes part of the challenge, atleast from a player perspective. You might be arguing that it makes them steer clear of the challenge area - I'd argue its actually too big a challenge for them because of the added fog. This is totally part of gamism - if somethings too big for you, you turn back. Not that the GM wont try to dare you a few extra times, heh.

Yes the fog itself becomes part of the challenge.  I agree with this and I think that is also why some people find such fog desirable.

But I also think it can have a deleterious effect on the game if the fog conceals the scale of the challenge, becuase that prevents intelligent decision making or risk analysis.  In extreme cases it can actually prevent the take-up of the challenges at all.

Consider in KOTOR the point at which you get to roam around the galaxy; like many of its predecessors, it presents a map that is notionally of millions upon millions of stars and planets, but of which like 5 or 6 can actually be selected.  Each one of them is a waypoint saying "challenge here".  Whereas, what we would usually do in RPG is lie that you can "go anywere", and present the map of millions of stars without annotation, and then harry and hound the players toward the prepared challenges anyway.

Result: RPG players spend half the session arguing about where to go next, and the CRPG player just goes "click".  And furthermore, I do not think that these visibly flagged challenges gave anything much away about the challenge itself.  So, I don't think that such flagging would detract from the fogginess of the challenge when it is chosen.  You could say I am proposing that "fog with landing lights" solves some of the negative aspects of fog alone, those problems that the fog itself induces.

[cydmab]

And if those fears reach such a pitch that the players resort to "if in doubt grenade it out"-type tactics,

This actually happened once a few sessions ago. 1 foot tall brownies had sent us on a quest to kill the Great Devourer. They were either unwilling or unable to get any more specific than that about what it was.
"What is the great devourer?"
"It's... um... huge... and devourers everything."
"How big is it? Is it as big as, him *points at Big burly 6foot 3inch warrior*"
"Oh, not that big."

We agreed for various reasons, but I/my character at least was very apprehensive about this quest. We tracked... something... to a clearing with a log in it. We either heard something inside the log, or saw tracks leading up to it (I forget which). So we had to make a choice - try to call out to the thing, on the off chance it was sentient and could be reasoned with... or nuke the log with a fireball. I agonized in character over the decision for a little bit, and then ordered the fireball. (Do I risk killing an innocent creature, or do I risk the welfare of my men?) Although I'd describe this scene as a successful, positive outcome of fog of war.

[contracycle]

Sure. There is indeed a time and a place for that kind of play.  I too enjoy wrestling with that kind of problem; but not whan it is so extensive that it effectively prevents propper engagement.  Fog that is part of the problem you are trying to solve is great; fog that prevents you finding the problem in the first place is counterproductive.

[Charrua]

Thank you all for your wonderful posts and insights as to how you all game. 

However, I'm still somewhat at a loss as to understanding how it all works and, most specifically, how it's unique from other styles of playing.

As I had understood it previously, the Fog of War was a gaming style that was primely focused on little player knowledge as a way to create and enhance tension within the game.  As an example, if playing a map-based RPG, you'd only see as far as your eyes can see, that's it.  You don't necessarily remember what was behind you, and you don't necessarily know what's in front of you.  As I see it, a huge part of the game is enhancing the gamble of what you're doing, be it through monster encounter or merely wondering if your actions will bear fruit. 

As an additional enhancement to this style of play, someone stated that as an additional curtain to the players, most of the dice rolling occurred at the beginning of the game to further create the tension of the unknown. 

So, to be more specific, I can see how easily fog of war can be done in map-based games, (i.e. dnde3.5) (though I'm still interested in seeing how people manage the social contract throughout all the "useless" wandering), but I'd like to know what else is out there.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Charrua, I'm really curious to learn about your play-experience concerning the issue. You described it briefly in your first post (or what became the first post) in this thread), and it would be great if you could describe an actual instance of play, very much who-said-what and who-understood-what, and what happened, to illustrate it.

And generally, here's a general thanks for preserving the topic and bringing out the best from a number of us in this thread.

Best, Ron