"No Myth" with D&D

[greyorm]

Our group finally started playing the 3E game again -- various issues such as work and births and such having interrupted the usual flow of gaming for a few weeks.

In all honesty, I was glad we hadn't played in all that time, as it gave me time to think and a break from a series of frustrating sessions after an exceptional ending to the previous desert-wasteland/djinni situation (that being the cold-blooded murder of the priestess called the Eld Sister by princess...while the leader of the group watched! The dwarf and the elf were not present and are (as yet) completely unaware of the event).

The following sessions consisted of the group's quick hike back through the desert and their journey towards the capital city, passing through a small border-village that had been ravaged by the djinni's undead horde before it was forced to recall them, and their arrival at the outskirts of the city.

We spent four sessions engaged in this when it should have, at most, been two sessions, and I could tell the players were completely frustrated by the end. Particularly relevant to these frustrating experiences were consistently failed rolls.

Most of my mistakes came from the use of the pass/fail mechanics and trying to keep everything "open" for the players, while making the mistake of presumption and lack of alternate plans. Inflexibility in my planning was my downfall -- when the players failed at a particularly important roll, I ended up lost and had to suddenly create something new on the fly to keep play moving.

While I don't mind doing that once or twice a session, doing it every session became exhausting and burned me out right quick. As well, my on-the-fly ideas aren't often as well-executed as those I've already established.

At the time, I was desperate to find a way to handle these results without "fudging" and "railroading" yet at the same time keeping myself sane. I don't know if that would have been possible.

I know what the players want from the game, and where they want to see it go. My plan is provide both what they want and to get them there -- that's all I'm supposed to be doing. I know my players like lots of physical action, with some socializing (ie: role-playing) and informational experiences (ie: "clue"-gathering or scene-setting) going on here and there. This is what they've responded well to in the past.

So, the unforseen break gave me time to think over the sessions, where I'd gone wrong and how I had failed as a whole in my planning. What I'd failed to take into account was their failing to make the skill rolls, whose success would have been necessary to have made the events possible!

Now, I'd missed, or rather, not bothered to read beyond the first post of the whole "A Demoralizing Day" thread, and then went back to it, surprisingly to find out a great deal of the discussion was focused on precisely what I'd been solutioning myself.

My players, especially the longest running member of the group, had become seriously frustrated at her ill luck in not rolling anything higher than a "10" in nearly four sessions of play, causing her character to consistently fail in every action she had attempted.

I eventually realized I didn't have play failed rolls as necessarily failing -- owing to text contained in Sorcerer & Sword about avoiding the "whiff factor" -- so for this recent game, I stole that page and used it.

To highlight this use, I'll use an example from the game: A roll was made to see if the leader could recall an outlander merchant they could deal with (owing some deadly problems they would have in dealing with anyone from the city, being marked as exiles), and I required an Intelligence roll.

She rolled a "12" but needed a "15" to succeed. Previously, I would have merely said, "You can't recall any." End of story, they would have to figure out another way in. Instead, I allowed her to recall a merchant they might be able to deal with -- if he had not left on caravan yet.

There are a number of ways I could have done this, from having had the establishment they approached empty (the caravan having obviously left on its annual trade journey), to having had the business occupied by citizens of the city instead. I chose instead to let the character be correct, the merchant she recalled was still in the city, though leaving in a few days -- but he had a guest, a citizen (a prostitute) who immediately recognized the characters as outcast and exiled! And of course, she began screaming for the guard...

Had the player's roll succeeded, there would have been no guest and the interaction would have gone off without a hitch, for the prostitute would not have been there to react to their status -- a status invisible to outlanders.

A situation in which I should have used this method a few games agone was when the princess' player made a Knowledge check to determine if she knew or recalled any ways by which they might enter the city undetected. She rolled, she failed and knew of no actual way to enter the city in such a fashion.

At the time, the plan was that if the roll was successful, she would recall reading about ancient royal crypts beneath the city, and hints of lost tunnels leading to them and connecting them to the palace...secret escape routes from the palace. And of course, they would find such an enterance to such a place when they looked for it. Failure kept the information from her.

This was stupid, stupid, stupid of me -- why go through the trouble of developing the information unless it gets revealed?

Success or failure, I should have revealed the information to the player...on a failure, some other impediment, some worthy complication, should have arisen. A grate blocking the way, requiring some thought or magic or skill to bypass, or a squad of guardsmen giving them chase into the tunnels, or an inability to find the enterance...but maybe knowing someone who would know...

Instead, they stumbled around, not knowing what to do for games on end -- and I know when they're stumbling, I can feel the energy level in the game drop. I should have used the planned material.

However, John and Marco mention in the "Demoralizing Day" discussion about how these planned designs create hoops for the players to jump through. After some thought, I think they're dead wrong.

In responding to events, no one is being forced in any particular direction -- this is not a hoop. This would work as "No Myth" because the rolls aren't planned, even if portions of the results are.

For example, the crypts were an idea I had earlier in the week, because I knew the players would be looking for a secret way into the city -- that was the plan they'd discussed at the end of the last session -- and into the Emperor's palace. This is just good prep on my part, it is responding to player desires. The crypts didn't exist until the players let me know they needed a secret way into the city, so I developed them between games.

However, the prostitute in the merchant's bed never existed until the dice said, "complicate the situation." In fact, the merchant never existed until the player thought to ask if she knew anyone that could help them obtain disguises. Even though all that was off-the-cuff, the question remained, "How do I get the players where they're telling me they want to go?"

Interestingly, they could have just as easily decided to stride into the city, been captured and hauled to the dungeons instead, there to find the leader's parents and thus continue the adventure, confront the emperor and the mad sorcerer and bring all that to a close -- I'd prepared for that situation as well, and it nearly came to pass.

But ultimately, I screwed up and slowed down the adventure in forcing a choice on them by simply restricing the available choices to one: walk into the city. That would have been (and was) railroading, not planning. And it came about despite my not having a plot for them to follow!

Amount of preparation for a game has nothing to do with running a Narrativist game, or even just an open-ended, non-Illusionist game.

[ADGBoss]

I was going to mention looking at the Demoralizing Day thread but you already did that :) I think your solution to "failed rolls" is a good one and brings in a degree of success model to 3E which really is not there.  Thats a good thing.  For years in both 2E and 3E my groups tended to use a "close enough" roll for such situations, revealing some but not all of the pertinent information.

One other thing, I would not beat yourself up too terribly. I know I do the sme if the game seemed unsatisfying.  However, I think you mentioned 4 "rough" sessions in a row? Around here that would kill a game so you must be doing something correct.

Sean
ADGBoss

[Marco]

Ou
However, John and Marco mention in the "Demoralizing Day" discussion about how these planned designs create hoops for the players to jump through. After some thought, I think they're dead wrong.

You got me wrong, there, bro.

What I was sayin' was that Fortune In the Middle to an *extreme* is hoops 'cause you just keep tryin' until you succeed--I was respondin' to John (who said that) and added that "*eventually* the PC's planned course o' action should just plain fail."

My adivice would be to structure the situation so that the information comes from a fairly fail-safe location: the character doesn't *roll* to remember the data--she just knows it (remembers stories told when she was a wee lass)--or that the character's entry into the city reunites them with an old friend who delivers the info.

I'm strongly advocating *AGAINST* critical-situational break points that are governed by game mechanics (must-win/must-lose combat). My take, though, is that the MECHANICS don't need to altered, just the scenario DESIGN.

That's all--I didn't disagree with anything you wrote.

-Marco

[greyorm]

Marco: thanks for the clarification!

Sean: Including myself, four members of our group have been gaming together for around to over half-a-decade prior to this campaign, the fifth joined us when we started this campaign in 2000.

The first year of life for this campaign was rather rough and frustrating, and I bitched about it on these forums at the time, before I got my Narrative groove on and started doing things right.

We've been through whole campaigns together that were poorly executed -- sticking them out for two or three years at a time (unfortunately, I ran one of those games). Yes...this was the classic gamer behavior Ron's always referring to: not liking the play, but not willing to give it up.

So, comparatively, and considering how well the sessions have gone in general over the past year, a four session downer isn't much to deal with, and especially not as I've now proven twice I can pull a slump out of its dive.

[Thierry Michel]

A roll was made to see if the leader could recall an outlander merchant they could deal with [..] and I required an Intelligence roll.

She rolled a "12" but needed a "15" to succeed.  [...]


I chose instead to let the character be correct, the merchant she recalled was still in the city, though leaving in a few days -- but he had a guest, a citizen [...] Had the player's roll succeeded, there would have been no guest

Did you explain to the player that the "guest" outcome was linked to the failed roll ? Maybe I'm picky (or hard-line Simulationist), but I don't find that solution very satisfying because I see the choice "guest/no guest" as completely independent from the result of the Int. die roll in game-world terms (I suppose you could rationalize it somehow - the roll could represent her failure to remember that that particular NPC often enjoyed company or something).

[Mike Holmes]

Yeah, I think Thierry has a point.

That is, this is fine for some players who don't mind the idea of their character abilities being made metagame. But for other's it's not so good.

Fortunately there are methods that satisfy everyone here. What we want as an aggregate is:

A) Results that do not make the character less of a protagonist, and

B) keep the plot moving, and

B) also produces results that seem to stem logically from the tasks performed.

Thus, Greyorm's solution satisfies A, and B, but not C. But one can come up with ways to do both with a little creativity. Basically, yes, one has to drop the idea of Pass/Fail, but adopt the notion that tasks can have other more complex results. And that a skill has more to it than may meet the eye.

So, in the case of looking for a merchant, the character is going to have some sort of protagonizing success that keeps the plot moving, coupled with some sort of problem related to the skill that makes the attempt a "failure". The easiest way I can think to do this is to sorta expand the description of the task. I mean it was "find a merchant", yes, but that also implies a lot of other things.

For one, it probably means, "find an honest merchant". So the player failing finds a merchant, but he fails to remember that the merchant is known for ripping people off.

Or it could mean "find a merchant who has what we need". Failure here means that they find a merchant, but he doesn't have the needed goods; but he knows where the players can find one for a price (essentially upping the cost of the goods sought).

Another meaning could be, "find a merchant that I haven't pissed off in the past". Failure here means confronting an old nemisis to get what I need. That's highly protagonizing, makes new plot, and all makes sense from the skill.

Deliver that last one like this, "You can't remember anyone nearby who will suit. But wait, now that you think hard on it, there is one man. Old Ali. But you cheated him the last time you saw him. With effort, you might be able to get him to help...with the right incentive."

Anyhow, I find that using this method is fairly easy, and satisfies all sorts of players.

Mike

[greyorm]

Thierry,

No, I did not inform the player, and I do not plan to in the future.

However, I do plan on bringing this method up in an e-mail after playing in this manner for a while longer to see how it runs and to indoctrinate the players against false expectations.

That is, if they know about it before they experience it, they'll be less receptive to the idea and double-guess it during play, making play run less smoothly.

If, however, I reveal that I've been making decisions in a certain fashion for a number of games, and those games ran well and were fun, their reaction to the idea will instead be based experience rather than worry/speculation: "Wow, we were doing that already and had fun? Cool, let's KEEP doing it!"

Some background is perhaps in order to understand my method and mindset: after emerging from a heavy and unfulfilling Simulationist period, I began to consider and now maintain the notion dice are abstract representations of what-happens-next. That is their sole and only use. I despise games that try to treat them as anything but this, because they inevitably fall into the "continuation of the plot is the reward for success" trap that Walt Freitag brought to light.

Rolling dice is a question: will my task succeed as I forsee? The answer is either yes or no. Yes, it will succeed as I forsee; or no, it won't succeed as I forsee (meaning that one either fails entire, or succeeds but not as they had desired/imagined). And this need not be a single task, but an entire conflict.

In fact, I do not like the whole "pass/fail" idea in its entirety because it has done nothing good for my game, least of all made the game more fun and enjoyable, and this is why I took a page from "Sorcerer & Sword" in this respect: you don't fail, the protagonists do not "whiff"...failure entails unforseen complications in either the long or the short term.

Perhaps you have to have read "Sorcerer" to see where I am coming from with this, especially as I owe a great deal of my philosophy of what a roll affects to its notion of resolving conflicts as opposed to resolving tasks.

As well, for all that one might say the idea of telling the players what the die-roll represents is motivated by Simulationist priorities, I don't believe it is an issue of Simulationism but of ease of play: if I tell them there's going to be a guest with the merchant if they roll badly, how do their characters know that?

Why should I saddle my players with in-game knowledge they will HAVE TO ignore in order to continue to play their characters, which would make the game more difficult or less fun for them to play?

Example: I tell them and they fail the roll. I have now limited the players from veering off the course of visiting the merchant: they have to -- they cannot decide not to after the roll is made -- because if they do not visit the merchant, the specter of "cheating" is raised: are they avoiding the merchant for valid reasons, or because they know he has a guest who would reveal them to the guard (and ruins their plans)?

Now I trust my players to not use OOC knowledge when they shouldn't, but handing out candy that can't be eaten is a can-of-worms I rightly want to avoid in its entirety -- rather like hosting a murder mystery game, stating who-dunnit at the start of the evening, then demanding everyone act surprised when it is revealed (to say nothing of the behavior of the guests during the interim).

Given that too much information merely increases the difficulty of play as outlined above, I choose not to tell the players. Of course, that's only why I would not tell the players, not why I chose the solution I did.

Consider, the immediate need was to find an outlander merchant, a need contingent on a variety of other desires, including the necessity of the individual being an outlander merchant and not a citizen, and how this hinged on their goal of getting into the city without being seen.

I took a more wholesome approach to the situation, rather than a situational one by factoring such ideas into the results of the roll: I asked, what's really being rolled for here? How will this roll affect the game and player/character desires? How can I use a failure to make the game continue?

The player isn't rolling JUST to see if they recall an outlander merchant, they're rolling to see if they can recall a merchant who will not reveal their presence to the citizens by noting their "exiled" marks. So the presence or lack of a guest is actually not independent in any way from the results of the roll: the roll is still determining the state of their revealment by taking this course of action.

I have to wonder if you would have such a strong objection if the roll failed and the merchant turned out to be misremembered as an outlander? Even though the actual results -- ie: what it does to the game -- are the same.

Consider that "misremembering" the merchant is the expected result when a roll fails, and I both did not wish to make the event quite so blatantly obvious, and as well, if the results are tied directly and obviously to what was rolled for, in situations like this we get into the "cheating/OOC knowledge" situation described further above.

The other solutions are thus "the merchant is not there" or "you do not recall a merchant."

And if I chose that course, how am I to interject elements to keep the game moving and interesting? Confront the characters with guardsmen on patrol, of course.

To use your problem with my solution to highlight this: somehow this encounter cannot be related to the rolls of the dice by the characters (except perhaps if they chose to roll Hide or Spot checks and failed/succeeded).

Either I would have to randomly roll to see if an encounter happened -- leaving me with the problem of what to do if the roll turned up nothing, and given that the players would be right back in that empty void of "free choice" but nothing to interact with except themselves until "something happens."

Having watched games go down in flames on numerous occasions because this is the precise path taken by said games, I do not wish to repeat or adhere to such a method. I'd rather there be "something happening" right now, all the time.

The second option would be to have firmly detailed future-timeline events, such as guard patrol routes, other characters passing through the region, and so forth; and I should have had such available for the characters to interact with.

However, I've found this method ultimately deprotagonizes the players by making them cogs in a greater wheel, as well as suffers from the problem that a GM does not have the time or ability to detail every such nuance of their game world (though the plethora of sourcebooks and supplements for various settings show that many, in fact, try).

Both options tie my hands, even if one slips from one option to the other in an attempt to avoid the obvious problems with each -- which is how a great deal of traditional RPG play actually occurs in my experience.

Now, note that I specifically stated that this was "No Myth" play: nothing in the world exists until play happens. What happens, and thus what exists, is specifically based on what the characters choose to do and how to fulfill their desires as players in an enjoyable manner.

This doesn't jive with the INT roll referenced in my last post determining only the location and/or existance of a specific entity. I need some way to build interesting, play-relevant events without resorting solely to GM fiat or pre-scripted modules/complete randomization.

So from all this I took my solution to the results of the roll.

Finally, my game is not Simulationist. It would not appeal to Simulationist players. One, it's D&D, and thus inherently Gamist. Two, we've Drifted it to Narrativist play. So I make all my adjudicative decisions based on these items and the thoughts above.

Thanks for the comments!

[Mike Holmes]

Uh, how is Thierry's suggestion any different, functionally, than yours.

You:"OK, you got a twelve? OK, you know of this one merchant."
Player:"OK? I go see him."
You:"When you get there, you find he's with a prostitute who calls the guard."

Thierry:"OK, you got a twelve? OK, you know of this one merchant."
Player:"OK? I go see him."
Thierry:"When you get there, you find he's with a prostitute who calls the guard. It's only then that you remember that he always has this girl to his house on Mondays."

The only difference is that Thierry's suggestion relates the failure back to the skill used in the attempt.

I understand that your game is Narrativist, and therefore does not require this. We're just mentioning how to do the exact same thing for those who do have the Sim bent. Just like both he and I said.  

Mike

[greyorm]

You're right about it not being any functionally different, and I say as much in my post, though I use the example of "misremembering" rather than tying the prostitute to the roll's originator.

And since I did not attempt to disprove either your or Thierry's suggestion (the post being an explanation of why I chose to do it the way I did), what this really has to do with what I posted...I dunno.

[Scripty]

After reading Ron Edwards' Sorceror and Sword book, I had similar insights to the contradiction between the stories I loved and the games I played.

I am currently using a method whereby a skill check in D&D never results in a failure if the objective is a clue or some plot moving device.

Instead, a "failure" on the die denotes a success of lesser quality. The worse the roll, the longer it takes to accomplish said task or the more obstacles that arise to hinder the attempt or complications that arise as a result of the attempt. [Edit: mixed up complications and obstacles.]

For instance, if a player is researching a particular monster type and needs a DC of 15 (I use a base DC of 10 + CR for Monster Lore), but only gets a total of 7, then I reveal all the nasty bits about the monster and allude to its weakness, but then... have that page ripped out of the book, giving them all the "bang!" out of the info, but forcing them to locate another copy for the info that gives them the serious advantage. Another example would be a character that needs to jump off a falling bridge to the other side. Say she needed a 22, but only got an 11. Well, then she's hanging on by her fingernails. If she had gotten a 5, then maybe she's hanging from a branch 30' down the cliff face. Or if she'd really messed up and gotten a 1 or a 2, then she might've lost her backpack or dagger in the incident. Or perhaps the twig she's hanging from is breaking and she needs to drop some dead weight fast...

The point being that player characters rarely out and out fail in my games. The skill roll just gives a gradation/time frame to their success. Will the thief pick the lock to the vault before the Cave Trolls catch up to the party? If he rolls an 18 or higher he will. If he rolls a 15, he will one round after they ambush the party. If he rolls a 10, the party will need to hold them off for 2 rounds, etc. etc.

Sometimes players fail. If someone doing something specific, like sneaking up on a combatant, searching for traps, or bluffing, I enforce a penalty for not making a roll. But I generally handle it ala Mythic: if they roll a one or a 2 and fail, then the failure is exceptional with possible complications arising as a result. If they roll a 19-20 and succeed then the success is exceptional as well. All the rest are just gradations of success and failure.

But if I have some plot element that hinges on player discovery, my general rule is that the players never fail. I hate to come up with stuff that I never use.

[Cassidy]

Great thread greynorm.

I may be way off base here but I thought that "No Myth" gives the players themselves some leeway to "make stuff up" just so long as it doesn't conflict with the genre expectations and already established facts of the game?

Looking at your couple of examples...

To highlight this use, I'll use an example from the game: A roll was made to see if the leader could recall an outlander merchant they could deal with (owing some deadly problems they would have in dealing with anyone from the city, being marked as exiles), and I required an Intelligence roll.

Why did you ask the player to roll?

Did play go something like this...

* Player: Do I know a merchant who can help us?
* GM: Hmmm, give me an intelligence check.
* GM: Interpets results

Being "No Myth" couldn't you have done something like this...

Player: Do I know a merchant who can help us?
GM: It's been a while since you've been in the city, but yes, you've had dealings with many merchants in the city before. Who do you trust?
Player: I know Cyrus the Cunning; actually, come to think of it the snivelling little bastard still owes me money.
GM: You seem to recall that he has a warehouse on the South wharf.

I thought that "No Myth" puts the onus on the players (and the GM) to make stuff up on the fly as and when necessary.

A situation in which I should have used this method a few games agone was when the princess' player made a Knowledge check to determine if she knew or recalled any ways by which they might enter the city undetected. She rolled, she failed and knew of no actual way to enter the city in such a fashion.

Again, why was the player required to make a roll?

Did it go something like this...

* Player: Do I know any way of getting into the city undetected?
* GM: Hmmm, give me an intelligence check.
* GM: Interpets results

Being "No Myth" couldn't you have done something like this...

* Player: Do I know any way of getting into the city undetected?
* GM: Have you ever needed to sneak into or out of the city before?
* Player: Yes, when I escaped from the slavers.
* GM: OK, how did you manage that?
* Player: There were some disused sewer pipes leading from the old city. But that was 12 years ago, I escaped when I was 8
* GM: Can you remember where the entrance to the old sewer system is?
* Player: There is a grate in the cellar of the White Ferret tavern.
* Etc, etc

Maybe I'm missing the whole "No Myth" thing but doesn't it allow the players themselves to introduce plausible story elements into the game "on the fly" as and when the need arises?

If I was running a D&D game aimed at promoting a Narrativist style of play then I would be inclined to only ask for rolls from players where success or failure is really going to have some significant effect on the direction of the story.

For example, if I felt that "failure" would give me as GM an opportunity to stir up the narrative pot then I'd call for a roll. Or, if there are a couple of ways for a roll to pan out and I think that each are potentially good for the story then I'll ask for a roll to see which way fate takes us.

The rest of the time you can probably dispense with requesting rolls from your players. Instead I would ask the players lots of questions to try and illicit as much feedback and input from them as possible. The players are responsible for creating "The Myth" as play progresses; it isn't all on the GMs shoulders to make "The Myth".

Or have I got "No Myth" completely wrong?

[Mike Holmes]

You don't have "No Myth" completely wrong, you're just overstating the case.

Maybe I'm missing the whole "No Myth" thing but doesn't it allow the players themselves to introduce plausible story elements into the game "on the fly" as and when the need arises?

It does "allow" for this, but it does not require it. That is, if the GM and players are playing in a manner that would allow this, then the style supports things being made up on the spot by players. But in normal D&D play the players don't really have the power to do this. The rules fairly clearly preclude it.

So, in that case, can you do "No Myth"? Yes, you can, it just means that it's the GMs responsibility to do all the work.

Now could D&D be drifted to allow this sort of play? Yes, probably fairly easily. But I suspect that Raven didn't want to really go all that "out there" to get the effect. And what he did was certainly sufficient to the task.

What were talking about here is whether or not the players have the authority to create using Director Stance. This is completely separate from discussions of GNS mode or "No Myth" play style. "No Myth" does not require player use of Director Stance, but it allows for it nicely if that's the way you want to play.

Mike

[Cassidy]

Thanks for the clarification Mike.

[John Kim]

However, John and Marco mention in the "Demoralizing Day" discussion about how these planned designs create hoops for the players to jump through. After some thought, I think they're dead wrong.

In responding to events, no one is being forced in any particular direction -- this is not a hoop. This would work as "No Myth" because the rolls aren't planned, even if portions of the results are.

For example, the crypts were an idea I had earlier in the week, because I knew the players would be looking for a secret way into the city -- that was the plan they'd discussed at the end of the last session -- and into the Emperor's palace. This is just good prep on my part, it is responding to player desires. The crypts didn't exist until the players let me know they needed a secret way into the city, so I developed them between games.

Well, first of all, I have to agree with Marco on one point.  "Jumping through hoops" has very strong negative connotations, which are only justified in extremes of this approach.  However, this isn't a binary switch (hoop or no hoop).  So I'll describe an analogy below, but remember it only applies to extreme cases.  I'm not saying it applies to your game, but it is certainly a pitfall to watch out for.  

A hoop is not a railroad.  To extend the analogy: the dog can run in whatever direction it wants, but whichever way it runs, it has to jump through the hoop to get there.  

In game terms, this means that whatever happens, the GM tries to ensure that it is neither an anticlimactic victory, nor a intractable failure.  I have seen it in practice.  Regardless of having a brilliant plan and terrific rolls, the PCs never get an easy win.  Conversely, regardless of how badly they screw up, they never are forced to just give up.  They will somehow survive and muddle through to a conclusion.  

A skillful GM can try to cover for each time, so that it seems like there is a logical reason why their brilliant plan didn't work -- or why their muddling didn't blow up the world.  However, even if they can't point to a specific decision, the players will over time notice the pattern.  Now, some players don't mind this, especially if it isn't extreme.  But some players dislike it in general (though you might not have any of the latter in your group).