The Gaming Den

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
A) Well, for one thing the Murderous Black Prince was a really unsketched NPC when I gave that example. It's pretty useless to retroactively add motivations or backstory after an explanation was made and then say that it doesn't make sense. If you gave them beforehand and then said my explanation didn't make sense you'd be on to something, but then the likelihood of my offering that as an explanation would've gone way down. Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy and all.

Irrelevant. The point is not that your example was badly defined. The point is that the Black Prince could have his motivations spontaneously changed on the whim of the dice when the players first meet him face to face, making his previous actions suddenly nonsensical.

B) I didn't give 'is greedy' as the only motivation. It's one of several. Probably the most important thing of roleplaying is deciding what explanation for something is the most sensible and fun. It's not like you were railroaded into making the prince greedy.

Yes, you were. The dice declared he is greedy, therefore it must be so, because apparently instead of "the player who put lots of points into diplomacy is really good at persuading people" we're getting "the player who put lots of points into diplomacy is capable of magically altering history so that people are going to like him regardless of whether he's shouting insults to their face."

C) Sometimes even when you're careful you'll do something dumb like declare that the king is a priest of Bane that hates elves yet made most of his trusted advisors elves and is famed for a commitment to pacifism. While I could think of a way to weasel out of that one sometimes it's okay to just admit that you did something nonsensical or out of character; in these cases you need to either declare a mulligan or just acknowledge the contradiction and carry on smartly anyway. Mistakes, even unfixable mistakes, happen and it's okay. It's also unavoidable by fiat systems, too.

It's not the DM doing something nonsensical or out of character, though, it's the dice forcing the story to do something nonsensical or out of character because you've allowed the RNG to dictate character motivations and plot points. It should not surprise you to learn that the RNG typically cannot sustain more than two or three directly relevant plot points before the odds of contradiction and huge, gaping plot holes begins to rapidly approach 1.

Chamomile wrote:Irrelevant. The point is not that your example was badly defined. The point is that the Black Prince could have his motivations spontaneously changed on the whim of the dice when the players first meet him face to face, making his previous actions suddenly nonsensical.

How?

Seriously, how is this supposed to happen? Everything that is defined about him potentially modifies the potential result space, and everything undefined about him can be ad hoc written to justify and connect his established actions together.

How is it even possible for him to have a reaction to the PCs that cannot be reconciled with hi previous established actions?

-Username17

Chamomile wrote:
Yes, you were. The dice declared he is greedy, therefore it must be so, because apparently instead of "the player who put lots of points into diplomacy is really good at persuading people" we're getting "the player who put lots of points into diplomacy is capable of magically altering history so that people are going to like him regardless of whether he's shouting insults to their face."

It's not the DM doing something nonsensical or out of character, though, it's the dice forcing the story to do something nonsensical or out of character because you've allowed the RNG to dictate character motivations and plot points. It should not surprise you to learn that the RNG typically cannot sustain more than two or three directly relevant plot points before the odds of contradiction and huge, gaping plot holes begins to rapidly approach 1.

Whoa, buddy, you're getting the cart before the horse there. This is how it's supposed to work.

You have the Black Prince and he has these modifiers to his reaction check: Hates non-humans, bloodthirsty, you killed his dad, you tore his nation in two, etc.. It's looking pretty grim for our heroes when he's scheduling the PCs for execution, but a natural twenty is rolled. So instead of doing what he was expected to do he decides to spare the PCs. THAT'S when you apply the ad hoc motivation. The reaction roll doesn't generate a result of 'the Black Prince is greedy', it generates a result of 'the Black Prince decides to spare the PCs' and then it's up to the DM to declare why. If 'the Black Prince is greedy' doesn't work as a motivation as to why he spared the PCs depending on how you defined the campaign and sketched the NPC then there are better fitting ones ones. I gave you five of them. Use them if greed isn't a sufficiently satisfying explanation.

Again, when you roll a 20 in battle, you got lucky and slipped the sword in the chinks of the bad guy's armor. When you roll a 20 on a fortitude save, you typically don't even bother to describe it past "you guy lucky." When you roll a 20 on Diplomacy, you magically retcon the bad guy's motivations so that the party leader is mistaken for the Black Prince's long lost son that he didn't even have until that roll. How about being good at Diplomacy means you're good at Diplomacy?

Chamomile wrote:Again, when you roll a 20 in battle, you got lucky and slipped the sword in the chinks of the bad guy's armor. When you roll a 20 on a fortitude save, you typically don't even bother to describe it past "you guy lucky." When you roll a 20 on Diplomacy, you magically retcon the bad guy's motivations so that the party leader is mistaken for the Black Prince's long lost son that he didn't even have until that roll. How about being good at Diplomacy means you're good at Diplomacy?

First of all: you're conflating reaction rolls and diplomacy tests.
If it is highly unlikely that the Black Prince would agree to talk with you rather than opening hostilities and then he agrees to talk with you anyway, then you don't have to retcon that as you being good at diplomacy. You have to retcon that as him being indecisive in this instance, curious about why you want to talk to him, or have some ulterior motive. Or something.

The point is that coming up and saying "We need to talk to the prince!" needs to have some chance of getting the prince to say "OK" or you're in railroad territory. Saying that any particular reasoning for why the prince agreed to it is unsatisfying does not constitute an argument, because there are an infinite number of potential lines of reasoning you could use. If one explanation does not satisfy, use a different one.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote: The point is that coming up and saying "We need to talk to the prince!" needs to have some chance of getting the prince to say "OK" or you're in railroad territory.

That, or you've written a character who is not in the habit of talking to his hated enemies for any purpose. I can actually think of a number of characters for whom talking to the party that's been acting against them would make absolutely no sense, unless it was to position them to a place where they could be killed more easily, in which case I've pulled an ambush out of hammerspace because the players rolled a 20.

What is being retconned exactly? Filling in blanks isn't a retcon. If the PC's biological parents are described and have been in the story and then it turns out that the Black Prince has a son, that's a retcon. If the PC has convenient amnesia or was mysteriously orphaned as a kid (to avoid having to write a backstory that extends into the childhood years) and the DM suddenly decides that the Black Prince turns out to be his father, that's not a retcon.

Do you get upset that the DM reveals that the NPC monk rival had the same super-secret training that the PC does when pressed for an explanation as to why her attack rolls are unexpectedly (to both DM and PC) good? Of course not; rolling those string of criticals did not from an in-story perspective alter the past to give her uber kung-fu training. She was always that good, you just didn't know why until it became important. If she didn't own your face you would have never known that she had uber kung-fu training because she would have been dead in a ditch and no one would have even noticed it. But she did, it's just that there was no reason to sketch out her story that much unless/until she affected the plot meaningfully.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:What is being retconned exactly? Filling in blanks isn't a retcon. If the PC's biological parents are described and have been in the story and then it turns out that the Black Prince has a son, that's a retcon. If the PC has convenient amnesia or was mysteriously orphaned as a kid (to avoid having to write a backstory that extends into the childhood years) and the DM suddenly decides that the Black Prince turns out to be his father, that's not a retcon.

Actually, yes it is. It's retroactively adding something to the past continuity of the story. Unless the DM planned it from the start, it's a retcon.

Do you get upset that the DM reveals that the NPC monk rival had the same super-secret training that the PC does when pressed for an explanation as to why her attack rolls are unexpectedly (to both DM and PC) good?

Yes, actually, I'd be mildly irked. Leaving plot points to the whim of the dice is a bad idea. The NPC monk rival shouldn't have the super-secret training the PC does unless she's actually got the same mechanical effects of said super-secret training as the PC.

You can't say that having the Black Prince refuse to meet with his enemies is railroading unless you're also willing to say that deciding the Black Prince is the villain in the first place is railroading, and you should've determined the villain via die roll and a table. And that every single dungeon should've been randomly generated, along with every quest and, really, every other plot detail. Nowhere in the implicit contract between the players and the DM is it said that the game world's construction will be left to random chance. In fact, it's explicitly stated that the DM creates the game world and runs its inhabitants, and that includes deciding what mood they're in on execution day.

Chamomile wrote:Actually, yes it is. It's retroactively adding something to the past continuity of the story. Unless the DM planned it from the start, it's a retcon.

So?

If you have a random encounter you retroactively add a whole lineage of harpies going back thousands of years to your game. Fuck, even having a non-random encounter retroactively adds those harpies and their mothers and their grandmother's grandmothers to the world. So fucking what?

It's a cooperative storytelling game, continuity goes backwards and forwards because unlike reality the entire world isn't defined at any given time.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:-snip

I note you rebutted the semantic nitpick and then ignored the solid paragraph I wrote that was actually important.

Chamomile wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:-snip

I note you rebutted the semantic nitpick and then ignored the solid paragraph I wrote that was actually important.

Nothing you said was important. You don't have a coherent point. The reason Lago and I are dismissive about your argument is because it is shit.

Because what you are essentially doing is conflating determinism and choice into a weird sticky mush that leaves you so turned around that you are eating out of your own asshole. I mean seriously, look at this shit:

Nowhere in the implicit contract between the players and the DM is it said that the game world's construction will be left to random chance.

Wat?

OK, let's take a step back or a moment. Everything in the universe behaves determinisitically. If you shoot an arrow in an arc, it will land at the end of that arc. Every time. If you shoot an arrow and it lands in an opponent's belly, it is because it was sent in an arc that was destined to do that. If you shoot an arrow and it lands somewhere else, that too was fate. The course of any arrow's flight is entirely predictable and determinable from the realities of physics and its initial conditions.

And you know what? We fucking roll attack rolls. Why? Because even though we live in a deterministic universe, the game world is largely undefined. We don't keep track of wind speed or precise foot placement o archers or any of that shit. The player determines that he wants the set of inputs of the world to be such that the arrow is determined to land in the chest of an angry ogre, and then you roll dice to make that happen. Or not happen.

Now here's the thing: social actions are actually way more complicated than the relatively simple physics of arrow flight. The number of inputs that go into them are so extensive and multi-factorial that there are smart people working in social sciences today that believe that we will never have a truly comprehensive model for how they work. And yet, bizarrely, here you are getting all bent out of shape over the game not treating the results of social actions as entirely deterministic.

What the fuck? We can't even satisfactorily treat social action resolution as deterministic under controlled circumstances with the aid of a fucking super computer, and you want to make all social actions satisfactorily deterministic at a table on the fly? How the fuck do you think that is supposed to work?

The players declare social actions and they roll some fucking dice and then you explain how the hell it was that those actions either worked or did not work and to what degree. You know, just like the arrow. Except that unlike the arrow's flight, which physicists have a pretty good handle on, there is no currently existing sociological theory that doesn't have significant issues with unexpected results.

-Username17

The reason Lago and I are dismissive about your argument is because it is shit.

You invalidated that by responding to the semantic nitpick in the first place.

The rest of your post is irrelevant because you're talking about a simulation of reality and I'm talking about making a story.

Chamomile wrote: The rest of your post is irrelevant because you're talking about a simulation of reality and I'm talking about making a story.

You have your head up your ass. If you're making a story, then you can't derive all future events from past events, because you haven't written the entire backstory of the entire universe. There will always be events that are uncaused by previously determined events and you will always be required to retcon in an explanation.

The first time harpies show up, you have to retcon the entire history of evolution and tribal movements to include harpies. And so on for every single story element or event introduced into the story, whether it is generated by a die roll or MC-fiat.

Your argument is not deep and insightful. It is a self contradictory morass of poop.

-Username17

You are confusing the nitpick with the actual argument. The two are not related to one another. This:

You can't say that having the Black Prince refuse to meet with his enemies is railroading unless you're also willing to say that deciding the Black Prince is the villain in the first place is railroading, and you should've determined the villain via die roll and a table. And that every single dungeon should've been randomly generated, along with every quest and, really, every other plot detail.

Is my argument. Continuity does not enter into it. Try not to let your emotions get the better of you, Frank, you do good work when you're not throwing a tantrum.

Chamomile wrote:You can't say that having the Black Prince refuse to meet with his enemies is railroading unless you're also willing to say that deciding the Black Prince is the villain in the first place is railroading, and you should've determined the villain via die roll and a table. And that every single dungeon should've been randomly generated, along with every quest and, really, every other plot detail.

Telling the player who specializes in talking to people that he cannot use his ability to talk to people on the dignitary is railroading, because that's the only way Talkin' Guy can meaningfully affect the game world with the Talkin' skill.

I don't know what this has to do with your batshit insane comparison, though.

A Man In Black wrote:

Chamomile wrote:You can't say that having the Black Prince refuse to meet with his enemies is railroading unless you're also willing to say that deciding the Black Prince is the villain in the first place is railroading, and you should've determined the villain via die roll and a table. And that every single dungeon should've been randomly generated, along with every quest and, really, every other plot detail.

Telling the player who specializes in talking to people that he cannot use his ability to talk to people on the dignitary is railroading, because that's the only way Talkin' Guy can meaningfully affect the game world with the Talkin' skill.

Using that logic, telling the player who specializes in killing gnolls that he cannot use his gnoll-killing ability on the dignitary is railroading, because that's the only way gnoll-killing guy can meaningfully affect the game world with the gnoll-killing skill. Therefore, bad guys should randomly change into gnolls sometimes.

Discuss.

hogarth wrote:Using that logic, telling the player who specializes in killing gnolls that he cannot use his gnoll-killing ability on the dignitary is railroading, because that's the only way gnoll-killing guy can meaningfully affect the game world with the gnoll-killing skill. Therefore, bad guys should randomly change into gnolls sometimes.

Yes, if you say that the black knight is magically immune to Sir Murder's deathstab technique, that is also railroading, for the same reason.

hogarth wrote: Using that logic, telling the player who specializes in killing gnolls that he cannot use his gnoll-killing ability on the dignitary is railroading, because that's the only way gnoll-killing guy can meaningfully affect the game world with the gnoll-killing skill. Therefore, bad guys should randomly change into gnolls sometimes.

Discuss.

A better example might be how an archer can't use his bow for some reason. Archery and diplomacy are actions. Gnoll killing abilities are modifiers to an action. You're still doing killing; you just do it better against gnolls.

Also, it's not railroading if the archer sometimes runs into short-range combats, or fights guys who cast Wind Wall. It is railroading if the DM just suddenly declares you can't use your bow against a guy 100 feet away for no in-game reason.

hogarth wrote:

Telling the player who specializes in talking to people that he cannot use his ability to talk to people on the dignitary is railroading, because that's the only way Talkin' Guy can meaningfully affect the game world with the Talkin' skill.

Using that logic, telling the player who specializes in killing gnolls that he cannot use his gnoll-killing ability on the dignitary is railroading, because that's the only way gnoll-killing guy can meaningfully affect the game world with the gnoll-killing skill. Therefore, bad guys should randomly change into gnolls sometimes.

Discuss.

We're gaming in a setting that includes a host of transmutation and illusion effects; that means that bad guys do randomly change into gnolls sometimes. Just, not by the metric you meant.

RobbyPants wrote:Also, it's not railroading if the archer sometimes runs into short-range combats, or fights guys who cast Wind Wall. It is railroading if the DM just suddenly declares you can't use your bow against a guy 100 feet away for no in-game reason.

Or for unreasonable in-game reasons.

Chamomile has in-game reasons for not allowing Diplomacy in longshot cases: he's unwilling to rationalize large amounts of randomness in social situations. This is why he's comparing allowing longshot Diplomacy successes to randomizing the entire game world and similar bullshit: they both strike him as equally unreasonable.

Why? I'm not clear on that one.

A Man In Black wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:Also, it's not railroading if the archer sometimes runs into short-range combats, or fights guys who cast Wind Wall. It is railroading if the DM just suddenly declares you can't use your bow against a guy 100 feet away for no in-game reason.

Or for unreasonable in-game reasons.

Chamomile has in-game reasons for not allowing Diplomacy in longshot cases: he's unwilling to rationalize large amounts of randomness in social situations. This is why he's comparing allowing longshot Diplomacy successes to randomizing the entire game world and similar bullshit: they both strike him as equally unreasonable.

Why? I'm not clear on that one.

I never said you shouldn't have a chance to try Diplomacy. I said that if your Diplomacy works it's because you're really good at diplomacy and not because the Black Prince is suddenly retconned as to having some reason to like you more to begin with. Nor for that matter is this about Diplomacy rolls in the first place. It's about reaction rolls.

Telling the DM that he has to randomize the actions of his NPCs because of a reaction roll is akin to telling the DM he has to randomize any other plot point that he should logically have control over, like who the villain is in the first place. Making situations where talking just isn't a viable option (i.e. you can try it but it won't end well) makes just as much sense as making situations where fighting just isn't a viable option.

A Man In Black wrote:

hogarth wrote:Using that logic, telling the player who specializes in killing gnolls that he cannot use his gnoll-killing ability on the dignitary is railroading, because that's the only way gnoll-killing guy can meaningfully affect the game world with the gnoll-killing skill. Therefore, bad guys should randomly change into gnolls sometimes.

Yes, if you say that the black knight is magically immune to Sir Murder's deathstab technique, that is also railroading, for the same reason.

Why did you change my example?

violence in the media wrote:We're gaming in a setting that includes a host of transmutation and illusion effects; that means that bad guys do randomly change into gnolls sometimes. Just, not by the metric you meant.

I agree, it's possible to justify. But do you do that in your games (randomly turn enemies -- no matter how important they are to your story -- into gnolls)? If not, do you still think it's a good idea? Why or why not?

Chamomile wrote:Telling the DM that he has to randomize the actions of his NPCs because of a reaction roll is akin to telling the DM he has to randomize any other plot point that he should logically have control over, like who the villain is in the first place. Making situations where talking just isn't a viable option (i.e. you can try it but it won't end well) makes just as much sense as making situations where fighting just isn't a viable option.

Reaction rolls, Diplomacy rolls, what-the-fuck-ever.

You are unwilling to rationalize large amounts of randomness in certain social situations. Instead of coming out and saying that and explaining why, you're making bullshit comparisons. Stop saying what it is "akin to" and tell us why it is undesirable for the GM to lose total control over this plot point.

hogarth wrote:Why did you change my example?

Because gnoll-killing guy can meaningfully affect the game world by murdering people who aren't gnolls, just marginally less effectively. There's a difference between "Well, the black knight's probably going to whip you" and "The black knight is completely immune to your attacks, sorry chump".

The same reason I don't randomize every other plot point. Because I can tell a better story than the RNG. If it were possible for a d20 to tell a better story than me, you wouldn't need me, you could program a Python script to run the game for you in an afternoon.

A Man In Black wrote:

hogarth wrote:Why did you change my example?

Because gnoll-killing guy can meaningfully affect the game world by murdering people who aren't gnolls, just marginally less effectively.

The same standards apply to diplomacy-guy; if diplomacy-guy can't meaningfully affect the game world in any way except by using diplomacy, then that's a shitty character and his player should be ashamed and/or taken outside and shot.

GM: "Okay, you encounter a skeleton."

Player: "BAWWWW!!! NO FAIR! I can't use Diplomacy on a skeleton!" <Player runs weeping from the table, hot tears of manly shame and frustration seeping into his proud neck-beard.>