Players want freedom AND engaging content

[Bill Cook]

I think he's just saying that the GM should conference with the players prior to or during prep. I had to search through some threads (since the glossary failed me on this occasion) to get a bead on No Myth. That's an interesting concept. I've made applications of that approach for sub-plot management. I think I first read about it in Story Engine. There's a line in the book somewhere that says "wherever the PC is, that's where the story should be happening." Something like that.

I think what Mike said is starting to sink in. Going out of bounds flouts the contest. It's not even taking a different path to victory. I"m really feeling the weight the text must bear in spelling out the kind of play it supports. In a game I played this weekend, my character was walking through one level of a complex of random encounters. They were intended to harry and pester. Instead of keeping my nose clean, I went off on a lark trying to befriend a monster. And just like a comic works details he gleans from a crowd into his jokes, play later referenced that creature significantly. Very Sim. Very not the point of the scenario.

In another case, my characters came across a gorgeous, fiery orange flower bloom and a tempting cluster of golden berries in the center of a palmy bush. Well, obviously, these were threats in waiting, but rather than keeping safe, I acted as though I couldn't resist inhaling what must be a heavenly scent or tasting what was surely most succulent fruit. To me, the scenario would have been much better if the text just said one of our guys smells the flower and is poisoned, only to be revived by the juice of golden berries. And only he can execute the sequence to open the portal leading out of the atrium. Then we'd have to face the saw frond-waving plant monster. Of course, without edits, avoiding anything enticing would do as well. It would just be rather boring.

[Mike Holmes]

I think what Mike said is starting to sink in. Going out of bounds flouts the contest. It's not even taking a different path to victory.

Well, the point is that what paths are viable is not clearly agreed to. For some, having a fistfight during a basketball game might be considered to be a valid way to decide the victor. It's just not likely that this was agreed to before the game.

Now, RPGs try to be "open" to some extent (in fact, some would argue that, sans that, it's really a wargame or proto-RPG, or some such). So there can be, in fact, negotiation in play about what the arenas of challenge are. But what such a module is doing is deciding on how to make that negotiation for you. In this case coming up with an in-game explanation for why you're not allowed to compete in this particular way. This, too, can be functional, if the players are aware that it's allowed on the part of the GM to play this way. And to the extent that this might work effectively, it's a technique that GMs might pick up for long-term play.

So I'm not saying that this can't work as a method. I'm just saying that it's probably not what people expect. That is, the D&D rules are all about enumerating what the characters can do, in terms of addressing challenges like fighting foes, or avoiding traps, etc. There's nothing in the rules that says anything about negotiation of arenas of conflict. That is, what's implied is that you can have your character do anything that the character could do if the situation were real. So I think that it's somewhat of a shock in some cases to find the GM using force to prevent the players from using options that would otherwise seem reasonable.

This is the basic AD&D Gam/Sim game rule incoherence rearing it's head. The modules are actually trying to come up with a functional way to deal with this (again tournament play requires this to have a level playing field between different groups attempting the module), by using in-game situation to make it so that they can still, in theory, do anything they want, but still also be constrained to the challenges that the module intend to present.

This is what I've been trying to get at, that modules or other pre-prepared material for play, in different ways for different sorts of these, have an influence on play styles in that they give techniques to enforce particular ones. These styles, interestingly, may or may not be what the particular system that they're designed to be played with also promotes. Which will be problematic only to the extent that there might be conflicting expectations set at different stages of play. If the expectations set are consistent ("You'll go to the place indicated in the adventure, and then you'll go through some challenges as you encounter them there...") then I don't think you have a problem. It's just that I think that often expectations are not equal.

So Shreyas is right, the way to fix this is to talk about it in the open. The in-game relation of the limitations on play is, as Gareth points out, problematic. Beause what it can say to the player is that, in fact, it is a challenge for the player to try and find a way to fistfight out of the basketball game. By saying that they can't do it because of circumstances, says that there might be another way to take out the steading that written circumstances do not address. For instance, perhaps the player asks, "Is there snow on the mountain above the vale in which the stead exists? Well, if it won't burn, then how about we cause an avalanche?" The text doesn't say that they can't do that. Again, the subtext of the "can't burn it down" is that we want them to go inside and treat the steading like a dungeon. But if that's not made clear in metagame terms, players may miss the fact.

In point of fact, I believe that at least once running the adventure in question, I had players spend a lot of time on methods of dealing with the problem that didn't involve going inside. For instance, they wouldn't believe that they couldn't get wood to burn (which is not too unreasonable). Not even with oil? Not even started by fireball? Not even if they stood there while the giants came out and fought them all while trying to keep the fire going? I think I finally had to resort to counting all of the giants, and pointing out that they couldn't win a pitched fight against all of them at once. I think I may have even added a few giants (on the rationale that they just happened to be home from hunting) just to make it clear that this was a bad tactic. So the party ran away, and then came back again and again to try to light it on fire. Killing a few giants each time before running off. I think that eventually I let them win this way just killing a few giants outside of the stead each time and running off to get more spells back, etc.

So, if I'm remembering correctly (and this was 25 years ago, when I was 11 years old, so...), they did manage to deal with the entire steading without ever going inside to kill a giant. Were they surprised when they got to the Jarl's place and the effect that fireballs had there! ;-)

So I think that makes my point. If you have an agreement to play with a level of simulationism in which "your character can do whatever a real person could do in this case," having in-game limitations on gamism solutions is asking for trouble. Or, more generally, don't use metagame power masquerading as in-game situation description to try to enforce things like arenas of conflict. It often sends the wrong message about what you're trying to do as GM. Set expectations in a clearly metagame fashion by having agreement amongst the participants.

Or, erm, what Shreyas didn't say.

Mike

[Shreyas Sampat]

Set expectations in a clearly metagame fashion by having agreement amongst the participants.

Or, erm, what Shreyas didn't say.

Mike

This is, indeed, one of the obvious solutions I was alluding to, the one appropriate to the style of play that Mike was discussing in his post above.

The others are "stop preparing; create all content at need" and "prepare collaboratively", which is to say, "the traditional GM role's preparation responsibilities are ill-concieved and inefficient for engaging the players' interest."

[John Kim]

First of all, I'd like to correct a factual issue.  My copy of The Steading of the Hill Giant Chief includes pretty clear instructions about fire, including functional instructions if the PCs burn it down.  The steading is located in a very damp region where it rains or drizzles most days -- so there is only a small chance of being able to successfully light it on fire.  However, if they succeed in burning it then the module instructs that the giants will all have retreated to the first rooms of the dungeon level.  Given the setup, this all seems quite reasonable.  It is not a very good option for the PCs (nor does it seem to be), but it is allowed for and doesn't break the module if players do it. 

So Shreyas is right, the way to fix this is to talk about it in the open. The in-game relation of the limitations on play is, as Gareth points out, problematic. Beause what it can say to the player is that, in fact, it is a challenge for the player to try and find a way to fistfight out of the basketball game. By saying that they can't do it because of circumstances, says that there might be another way to take out the steading that written circumstances do not address. For instance, perhaps the player asks, "Is there snow on the mountain above the vale in which the stead exists? Well, if it won't burn, then how about we cause an avalanche?" The text doesn't say that they can't do that. Again, the subtext of the "can't burn it down" is that we want them to go inside and treat the steading like a dungeon. But if that's not made clear in metagame terms, players may miss the fact.

I'm not sure, but it seems like you're saying that meta-game agreement is superior to in-game cause in general.  So, for example, rather than designing so that the characters have a good reason to go on the adventure -- it's better to instead ask the players to negotiate metagame that they go on the adventure.  If that's really what you're saying, then I have to disagree.  In fact, that sounds like a design approach that I hate. 

As far as I'm concerned, a module should try as best as possible to provide good in-game reasons for the adventure to happen.  What I consider one of the great strengths of RPGs is that they allow for flexible thinking and problem-solving.  I prefer to encourage this.  The same principle, though, is true for other games as well.  For example, in board-games or video games, I think it's a lot more fun for the limitations to be built into the operation of the game rather than having written instructions to the players not to do certain things.  It's much more fun to go into the game and try out what works and what doesn't.  (In fact, in computer games, players commonly don't read the instructions at all.)  While the authors could have elaborated further on how to handle approaches like fire, Steading of the Hill Giant Chief seems a pretty good approach in principle. 

[Shreyas Sampat]

I'm not sure, but it seems like you're saying that meta-game agreement is superior to in-game cause in general.

I think a more useful interpretation of these statements is that you cannot use in-game cause to guarantee that players behave in one way or another; you need explicit player agreement for that.

Discarding game cause and effect entirely seems to be a sort of radical and unproductive reading of Mike's statements.

[John Kim]

I'm not sure, but it seems like you're saying that meta-game agreement is superior to in-game cause in general.

I think a more useful interpretation of these statements is that you cannot use in-game cause to guarantee that players behave in one way or another; you need explicit player agreement for that.

Discarding game cause and effect entirely seems to be a sort of radical and unproductive reading of Mike's statements.

Well, it is tautologically true that the only way to get the players to behave in a particular way is for the players to behave in a particular way.  But you're more specifically advocating metagame negotiation.  But also by definition, negotiation is not going to guarantee that the other players will behave in a specific way.  The closest thing you can get to a "guarantee" is an ultimatum rather than negotiation -- i.e. do this or the game ends.  However, that isn't a guarantee since the other players may just quit. 

In short, there are no guarantees. 

The question is, what approach to preparation minimizes problems?  I don't think there is a single answer to this.  But you and Mike seem to be actively deriding the solution of coming up with in-game causes.  For example, the three solutions you cite are metagame negotiation of expectations, "stop preparing; create all content at need" and "prepare collaboratively".  Since you didn't list devising in-game causes, I presume that you think it simply doesn't works as a solution.  If you do think it works, can you explain when you think it is appropriate? 

[Shreyas Sampat]

I don't have a strong opinion about whether that technique works or not; I do not enjoy it, so I only use it accidentally.

[Callan S.]

Hi John,

Just need to ask something to figure out relative positons, and quoting you for context.

I'm not sure, but it seems like you're saying that meta-game agreement is superior to in-game cause in general.  So, for example, rather than designing so that the characters have a good reason to go on the adventure -- it's better to instead ask the players to negotiate metagame that they go on the adventure.  If that's really what you're saying, then I have to disagree.  In fact, that sounds like a design approach that I hate.

I read this web comic once where a player was declaring they were going to beat the other player in a video game, without using the kick button. And after that, they were going to beat them without using the punch button!

Now, the game didn't restrict them from using the kick button, or the punch button. But would you hate it if someone else actually challenged you not to use the kick button, to beat a bad guy in the game?

I'll be a bit presumptuous. Is something like the kick button or steading burning, part of the exploration for you? Their removal actually removes the point of play for you?

[contracycle]

The others are "stop preparing; create all content at need" and "prepare collaboratively", which is to say, "the traditional GM role's preparation responsibilities are ill-concieved and inefficient for engaging the players' interest."

I think thats a non-starter; this effectively proposes a game comprised of bland and undeveloped settings, inhabited by cardboard cut-out people, and in which actual play of the game may be abandoned at any moment in favour of constant negotiation in real time with your fellow "players".

Because that is the price necessarily paid by a design-during-play approach.  There simply is no way in the world your or my extemporising in real time, with minutes ticking by and players wanting to know the answer, or what happens next, is going to achieve the kind of quality that careful and thought out design conducted in its own time, as preparation, can produce.  This solution IMO is a clear case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, a solution that is worse than the problem it proposes to solve.

I do not at all regard the traditional GM role as being "ill-conceived", far from it.  Nor do I think the role of the novel writer is ill-conceived and that the production of novels would be improved by simply recording the "authors" stream of consciousness and capturing the "opinions" of the editors and publishers.  There is a value to careful, purposeful, intentional, DESIGN.  And that value is the quality such design can achieve.

[John Kim]

I read this web comic once where a player was declaring they were going to beat the other player in a video game, without using the kick button. And after that, they were going to beat them without using the punch button!

Now, the game didn't restrict them from using the kick button, or the punch button. But would you hate it if someone else actually challenged you not to use the kick button, to beat a bad guy in the game?

I'll be a bit presumptuous. Is something like the kick button or steading burning, part of the exploration for you? Their removal actually removes the point of play for you?

I wouldn't go that far -- but I would tend to say that it tends to detract from play for me.  That is, I suspect it would feel like a distraction to me to always have to avoid touching the kick button.  It might be OK as an experiment or to prove a point, but it wouldn't be the normal way I play.  (I don't play fighting video games, but I play some online puzzle games and I've played some video games in the past.)  As a point of design, I would say that if the game isn't much fun unless you restrict yourself from kicking, then kicking should be removed from the game rather than asking that the players talk about it out of game so as to agree not to kick. 

So yes, I guess feeling that I have all options open to me is an important part of my RPG enjoyment.  It is part of what distinguishes RPGs from board or card games for me.  A single instance probably isn't a game-breaker for me -- but the more command and intrusive the agreements, the harder it would be. 

[Mike Holmes]

I'm really not getting through here. My point that I made at length is that it's about player expectation about how they're allowed to negotiate. If, in fact, everybody agrees that "the character can do anything" and that all "negotiation" will be in-game as you prefer, John, then that's fine. It's just that this is often not the case.

So what I'm saying must be agreed on is the "meta-meta-game," possibly. The "how do we agree on what the characters can do?" (other than Lumpley). Do we agree by using metagame methods? Or do we agree by using in-game methods? This is what has to be established in the metagame, because the characters certainly aren't going to get it. Rather, using subtle in-game techniques to force a certain method of arena negotiation is only valid if everyone has agreed that it's a valid way to go. And further, whether or not players are allowed to "play back" this way.

Put another way, agreements between players should be made in the metagame, not by using in-game devices to imply things to the players. It's actually far more complicated than this, because, of course, every maneuver you make with a character is actually negotiated to some extent. There is no "in-game" just a set of agreed to constructs called system that allow us to avoid most overt negotiation.


As to the specific example of the Steading, that came up in another thread, and I was doing it from memory. The specific text is not important, however, so much as my personal reading of it and what I did with it. That is, this thread is about how negotiations occur. Whether or not I did a good reading of the module in question (sounds like I didn't) is immaterial here. What's important is that I made the mistake of trying to limit the players options using an in-game ruling, which informed them that they could do the same thing. When what I wanted was for them to just "play the module." I'm sure I could have accomplished what I wanted, had I had an agreement with the players created on the metagame level to just "play along."

Or you would have done it right, because you would have already had an agreement created somehow with your players that they were, in fact, allowed to do things like burn down the steading, or anything else that their characters could reasonably do.

Mike

[Callan S.]

I think the issues slipped from meta game agreement to agenda clash, here. In the same way an explicit metagame agreement that 'we'll roll the dice, but you will automatically win all the battles anyway' would remove gamist content, an explicit 'no burning of the steading, okay' agreement removes sim content. The metagame agreement isn't the issue at all.

John, hope this doesn't just look like labeling. But not being able to use the kick button is supposed to be irritating for a gamist agenda...that's what makes it great when you overcome the obstacle, the fact that you beat this annoying thing! When a player doesn't strive for that day they overcome the problem and instead is just rubbed the wrong way by it, I'd say it's something else other than gamism.

Now if we were to talk about sim and player freedom - well, the sim guys are a bunch of lucky bastards! I think it's really hard for them to undermine their own agenda with freedom. Perhaps only by traveling in a straight line at high speed could they do it, by leaving behind all the richest prepared content. And certainly an agreement to not burn down the steading is just rubbish for a sim agenda.