The Gaming Den

No, Atmo. I disagreed with K.

K 's position: "Games like Fate are conductive to railroads".

Silva 's position: "Games like Fate are conductive to sandboxes/player-driven gameplay".

silva wrote:No, Atmo. I disagreed with K.

Almost there, tsc!

silva wrote:K 's position: "Games like Fate are conductive to railroads".

Silva 's position: "Games like Fate are conductive to sandboxes/player-driven gameplay".

Those two positions look very biased on personal experiences. I'm talking from an outside PoV (FATE makes me sleep and World looks very "NO") so i can say that only the GM can do that.

Some games are focused solely on story, giving the feel of railroad (as Busca Final and the general idea of dungeon crawl), but those same games can be used as sanboxes.

Let me give you an example: Risus (yuck). The char creation is very open ended and the game instructs you to do "funny things to entertain everyone, even that guy who isn't playing".

Another example: Busca Final. The story impregnated in this game tells you to rail your players on the journey to find the ultimate answer to "why magic vanished from our world from night to day?" giving a simple system and a handful of explanations for what everyone does (sheets are ready, you can't even create your own character). The book ends (horribly) saying that the GM must create his own Answer for the "magic poof" question, ignoring the Journey itself if needed. All that those people did until finding the answer could get them a mercenary ending ("now we know, so we can bribe other kingdoms to do our biding!") or for naught ("eh, everyone's dead, fluck this zit").

oops, ignore this.

Atmo, I understand you dont know the games we are talking about here enough (Fate and AW), so lemme give you an actual example:

Imagine this situation: your character is surprised by a group of goblins while trekking through a forrest.

a. In a task resolution game (like Gurps) your only method for interacting with this situation is through your character skills and/or physical actions. Lets say you chose to bargain with the goblins for your life. (perhaps giving them all your belongings and making a blowjob for each in the group)

b. in a game with shared narration/fiction authorship mechanics (like Fate, AW, Houses of the Blooded, etc) your method for interacting with this situation goes beyond your character skills/physical interactions. These systems allow the player to (partially) author the fiction. So, lets say, the player decides to use his "spout lore" move (from Dungeon World) and state that "These goblins are from a pacifist clan, and by the look on their faces, they are actually looking for help". If he suceeds the roll, the GM must take his statements as true.

So, while the first game (Gurps) only allows the player to interact with specific physical tasks in the game world and let the rest for the GMs hands/whims, the second game (Dungeon World) allow the players to actually steer the fiction direction, regardless of the GM intentions for that scene. (and that important ambush encounter the GM had prepared for the night just changed into a party in the forrest! )

Got it ?

silva wrote:Atmo, I understand you dont know the games we are talking about here enough (Fate and AW), so lemme give you an actual example:

Imagine this situation: your character is surprised by a group of goblins while trekking through a forrest.

a. In a task resolution game (like Gurps) your only method for interacting with this situation is through your character skills and/or physical actions. Lets say you chose to bargain with the goblins for your life. (perhaps giving them all your belongings and making a blowjob for each in the group)

b. in a game with shared narration/fiction authorship mechanics (like Fate, AW, Houses of the Blooded, etc) your method for interacting with this situation goes beyond your character skills/physical interactions. These systems allow the player to (partially) author the fiction. So, lets say, the player decides to use his "spout lore" move (from Dungeon World) and state that "These goblins are from a pacifist clan, and by the look on their faces, they are actually looking for help". If he suceeds the roll, the GM must take his statements as true.

So, while the first game (Gurps) only allows the player to interact with specific physical tasks in the game world and let the rest for the GMs hands/whims, the second game (Dungeon World) allow the players to actually steer the fiction direction, regardless of the GM intentions for that scene. (and that important ambush encounter the GM had prepared for the night just changed into a party in the forrest! )

Got it ?

I never said i didn't know how to play, as World games play as "roll and say something that the GM might consider depending on his mood", and FATE... that i really don't care how they run.

Alas, to use GURPS in every other system place to demonstrate how flawed those systems are on your point of view is really silly. Do you know that GMs can change the system to is own/party benefit, adding or subtracting subsystems that he/they see fit to their style of play.

Let me see other examples: 3D&T let's you spends Experience Points to help you in some test or create a new situation, OVA gives you Drama Dice to do the same thing, BESM... i can't remember, some d20 system games have Action Points to help on tests, Double Cross allows you to "break" a Lois and receive a bonus in some test, and much more. Hell, even the group can plot something that the GM see promissing and eschew is own plan/system for a while to use what they discussed and do what they want. (because they are free, they are pirates!)

In the end you can play hide & seek with your friends using FATE or World, but you guys are enjoying life as you want.

Fuchs wrote:And no, there's no way you'll have all NPCs statted out in advance to cover any and all possible combat encounters. Especially not if you actually plan to have challenging fights and not TPKs or pushovers.

Eh, close enough:

Official 3.5:
http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/monsters.htm

Homebrew 3.5:
http://www.dndwiki.com/wiki/3.5e_Monsters
http://www.dndwiki.com/wiki/Liber_Demon ... ourcebook)

Official Pathfinder:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s

The last one comes in especially handy in civilized areas. Also, no harm in saying, "Guys, I have no idea how to resolve this. 10 minute time out."

Grek wrote:Games which lack a GM obviously are going to have a tough time with railroading.

The basic version of Warhammer Quest has no DM and is extremely railroady. You randomly generate a quest, and you either complete that quest or fail. There is no third option.

radthemad4 wrote:

Fuchs wrote:And no, there's no way you'll have all NPCs statted out in advance to cover any and all possible combat encounters. Especially not if you actually plan to have challenging fights and not TPKs or pushovers.

Eh, close enough:

Official 3.5:
http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/monsters.htm

Homebrew 3.5:
http://www.dndwiki.com/wiki/3.5e_Monsters
http://www.dndwiki.com/wiki/Liber_Demon ... ourcebook)

Official Pathfinder:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s

The last one comes in especially handy in civilized areas. Also, no harm in saying, "Guys, I have no idea how to resolve this. 10 minute time out."

So... you always have the guard (and other NPCs) numbers, quality and place inside the castle laid out? So you can run a "let's assassinate the king and take over" twist on the fly, without making the fight a pushover or a TPK?

I think not.

Fuchs wrote: So... you always have the guard (and other NPCs) numbers, quality and place inside the castle laid out? So you can run a "let's assassinate the king and take over" twist on the fly, without making the fight a pushover or a TPK?

I think not.

Why would you necessarily want it to resolve either as 'not a cake-walk' or 'not a TPK'?

I mean, if it's a surprise that your players decide to go all Lancelot on the castle inhabitants, if the party is high level they very well might have an easy time filling the cisterns with the blood of the defeated. And if they're low level, they might find themselves strung up as traitors. Or at least, awaiting execution.

But yes, a 'let's take on the castle' is probably one of the easiest 'on the fly' options. There are plenty of maps freely available, most of the stat blocks are simple and repetitive, and the tactics and objectives are pretty basic.

Fuchs wrote:

radthemad4 wrote:

Fuchs wrote:And no, there's no way you'll have all NPCs statted out in advance to cover any and all possible combat encounters. Especially not if you actually plan to have challenging fights and not TPKs or pushovers.

Eh, close enough:

Official 3.5:
http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/monsters.htm

Homebrew 3.5:
http://www.dndwiki.com/wiki/3.5e_Monsters
http://www.dndwiki.com/wiki/Liber_Demon ... ourcebook)

Official Pathfinder:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s

The last one comes in especially handy in civilized areas. Also, no harm in saying, "Guys, I have no idea how to resolve this. 10 minute time out."

So... you always have the guard (and other NPCs) numbers, quality and place inside the castle laid out? So you can run a "let's assassinate the king and take over" twist on the fly, without making the fight a pushover or a TPK?

I think not.

You toss some pre-statted guards at the PCs that can be found in seconds of checking books you have or the Internets. I personally keep around old Dungeon Mags and have access to lots and lots of pre-statted crap of every level and I know that it won't TPK.

In the 30 minutes it takes to do the first battle, I can draw several castles, find the stats for hundreds of NPCs, and come up with ten fun story alternatives to doing battles.

Sandbox-style play is actually a lot easier than writing adventures if you have any management skills at all.

silva wrote:b. in a game with shared narration/fiction authorship mechanics (like Fate, AW, Houses of the Blooded, etc) your method for interacting with this situation goes beyond your character skills/physical interactions. These systems allow the player to (partially) author the fiction. So, lets say, the player decides to use his "spout lore" move (from Dungeon World) and state that "These goblins are from a pacifist clan, and by the look on their faces, they are actually looking for help". If he suceeds the roll, the GM must take his statements as true.

Um ...

DungeonWorld wrote: Spout Lore
When you consult your accumulated knowledge about something, roll+Int. On a 10+ the GM will tell you something interesting and useful about the subject relevant to your situation. On a 7–9 the GM will only tell you something interesting—it’s on you to make it useful. The GM might ask you “How do you know this?” Tell them the truth, now.

It does not at all work the way you describe. The GM is the one who provides the info. The GM is the one who decides what kind of info you get. The GM is the one who decides whether your "move" has any ability to alter the narrative path of the campaign.

There are two options here.

1) You don't know how to read.
2) You're a lying liar.

silva wrote: So, lets say, the player decides to use his "spout lore" move (from Dungeon World) and state that "These goblins are from a pacifist clan, and by the look on their faces, they are actually looking for help". If he suceeds the roll, the GM must take his statements as true.

That sounds awful. Changing the narrative at any opportunity is not making meaningful choices; it's getting whatever you want any time you want.

Getting to change the narrative without limits is just talking to yourself. It's a thing that crazy people do.

K wrote: In the 30 minutes it takes to do the first battle, I can draw several castles, find the stats for hundreds of NPCs, and come up with ten fun story alternatives to doing battles.

A lot of superhuman DMs running around it seems.

You can run a 30 minute combat complete with descriptions of actions, reading the statblocks of NPCs you just pulled from a folder, watching the initiative list, making sure your PCs don't make illegal moves, tracking monster HP and stats, all the while looking through dragon magazines for extra stat blocks, drawing up several castle maps, complete with interesting treasure, traps and furnishings AND coming up with ten other story alternatives? And somehow you end up having fun with all that multi-tasking instead of popping anti-stress medication like candy?

Wow man. I guess you must have got your superpowers from the same place Zak S received his ability to uncannily write perfect rules as part of a 15 second ruling. This board is apparently full of gaming super beings.

For us mere mortals trying to have fun running a game, it takes a while to design interesting dungeons for our PCs to explore. And the more complicated the rules are, the less we can prepare.

Atmo wrote:I never said i didn't know how to play, as World games play as "roll and say something that the GM might consider depending on his mood", and FATE... that i really don't care how they run.

So you dont really know these games, as I suspected.

Alas, to use GURPS in every other system place to demonstrate how flawed those systems are on your point of view is really silly. Do you know that GMs can change the system to is own/party benefit, adding or subtracting subsystems that he/they see fit to their style of play.

..and yet, no matter what Gurps sub-system the GM chooses to pick, none will give him the kind of "shared fiction authorship" Fate and AW gives. Thats because Gurps was not designed to do it.

Let me see other examples: 3D&T let's you spends Experience Points to help you in some test or create a new situation, OVA gives you Drama Dice to do the same thing, BESM... i can't remember, some d20 system games have Action Points to help on tests, Double Cross allows you to "break" a Lois and receive a bonus in some test, and much more

Yup, I think this is the kind of rules we are talking about here. Though I would say the "Hero point" concept is a more raw/primitive (sorry, don know a better term) version of it these kinds of "shared narrative" rules.

Hell, even the group can plot something that the GM see promissing and eschew is own plan/system for a while to use what they discussed and do what they want. (because they are free, they are pirates!)

Sure, sure. But then it would be a factor of the group, not the systems at hand. Im more interested in seeing what systems have made in respect to it.

cyberzombie wrote:A lot of superhuman DMs running around it seems.

You can run a 30 minute combat complete with descriptions of actions, reading the statblocks of NPCs you just pulled from a folder, watching the initiative list, making sure your PCs don't make illegal moves, tracking monster HP and stats, all the while looking through dragon magazines for extra stat blocks, drawing up several castle maps, complete with interesting treasure, traps and furnishings AND coming up with ten other story alternatives? And somehow you end up having fun with all that multi-tasking instead of popping anti-stress medication like candy?

Wow man. I guess you must have got your superpowers from the same place Zak S received his ability to uncannily write perfect rules as part of a 15 second ruling. This board is apparently full of gaming super beings.

For us mere mortals trying to have fun running a game, it takes a while to design interesting dungeons for our PCs to explore. And the more complicated the rules are, the less we can prepare.

What he said. Again.

NineInchNall wrote:t does not at all work the way you describe. The GM is the one who provides the info. The GM is the one who decides what kind of info you get. The GM is the one who decides whether your "move" has any ability to alter the narrative path of the campaign.

I stand corrected. Just checked my book here and you are perfectly right.

Dont know where I got that interpretation from the rules. Perhaps some online LP Ive read where the group used Spout Lore that way ? Hmmm..

silva wrote:

Atmo wrote:I never said i didn't know how to play, as World games play as "roll and say something that the GM might consider depending on his mood", and FATE... that i really don't care how they run.

So you dont really know these games, as I suspected.

This is the best explanation i can give you about what i think about FATE (and even isn't mine XD): http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=369089#369089

silva wrote:Yup, I think this is the kind of rules we are talking about here. Though I would say the "Hero point" concept is a more raw/primitive (sorry, don know a better term) version of it these kinds of "shared narrative" rules.

And where is written that anyone can pick those rules and insert them on their system of preference?

silva wrote:Sure, sure. But then it would be a factor of the group, not the systems at hand. Im more interested in seeing what systems have made in respect to it.

Nowadays we can throw this logic out of the window, as dozens, if not hundreds, of systems exists.

Yes, GURPS is a good system to some things, but it have flaws. No system is perfect, and if anyone says it you can have 100% sure he is a fanboy that doesn't like to hear the contrary.

Cyberzombie wrote:

K wrote: In the 30 minutes it takes to do the first battle, I can draw several castles, find the stats for hundreds of NPCs, and come up with ten fun story alternatives to doing battles.

A lot of superhuman DMs running around it seems.

You can run a 30 minute combat complete with descriptions of actions, reading the statblocks of NPCs you just pulled from a folder, watching the initiative list, making sure your PCs don't make illegal moves, tracking monster HP and stats, all the while looking through dragon magazines for extra stat blocks, drawing up several castle maps, complete with interesting treasure, traps and furnishings AND coming up with ten other story alternatives? And somehow you end up having fun with all that multi-tasking instead of popping anti-stress medication like candy?

I hate to break it to you, but DMing doesn't take a lot of effort. Players don't give a shit about furnishings, they spend most of combat chatting about Pokemon or making jokes and thus don't need to be paid attention to, and pulling stat-blocks from adventures you've read dozens of times is pretty easy if you spent exactly one afternoon listing the stat blocks you might use.

Combats basically run themselves because of the honor system anyway. If you are watching players like a hawk because you think they'll make illegal moves, you should stop playing with those guys because they are making lots of illegal moves that you can't catch.

Seriously, if you are popping anti-stress medication because you are DMing, you need to stop gaming. Gaming is super-relaxed and the biggest problem is keeping people off the Super Smash Bros. and focused on the action in front of them. I've literally seen players spend six hours planning an assault that took 30 mins and that's par for the course.

Picking enemies that actually are a challenge for the PCs, and organized so that they make sense, is not that easy once you leave the low levels behind. Especially when it comes to justify the defenses a king would have. Even more so if you have lots of rules to follow in building encounters.

Even one enemy spellcaster that ended up just a bit too high-level, or with just a bit too powerful spells, can swing the encounter from pushover to TPK.

Fuchs wrote:Picking enemies that actually are a challenge for the PCs, and organized so that they make sense, is not that easy once you leave the low levels behind. Especially when it comes to justify the defenses a king would have. Even more so if you have lots of rules to follow in building encounters.

Even one enemy spellcaster that ended up just a bit too high-level, or with just a bit too powerful spells, can swing the encounter from pushover to TPK.

Players don't care about any of those things. They want fun and memorable encounters and don't care if the enemies are perfectly calibrated to their power level and perfectly-designed for the setting.

They know that these are not achievable goals even with canned adventures.

K wrote:

silva wrote: So, lets say, the player decides to use his "spout lore" move (from Dungeon World) and state that "These goblins are from a pacifist clan, and by the look on their faces, they are actually looking for help". If he suceeds the roll, the GM must take his statements as true.

That sounds awful. Changing the narrative at any opportunity is not making meaningful choices; it's getting whatever you want any time you want.

Getting to change the narrative without limits is just talking to yourself. It's a thing that crazy people do.

This seemed really disturbing to me at first, but I think it depends on how you look at it. This sounds like Frodo saying "And then Glorfindel/Arwen appears on a horse and saves me" which sounds pretty horrible in a game. However if it was Frodo's player asking the GM, "I'd rather not make a new character right now and I seem to be screwed, could you send a rescue party or something?" and there are mechanics for invoking it, I'm much more okay with this sort of thing. Mechanics for changing the narrative should explicitly be labeled as a metagame thing though and not something the characters do.

Fuchs wrote:Picking enemies that actually are a challenge for the PCs, and organized so that they make sense, is not that easy once you leave the low levels behind. Especially when it comes to justify the defenses a king would have. Even more so if you have lots of rules to follow in building encounters.

Even one enemy spellcaster that ended up just a bit too high-level, or with just a bit too powerful spells, can swing the encounter from pushover to TPK.

I tend to not worry too much about getting 'just the right level of difficulty'. Yes, I often make mistakes. Sometimes the party plows through enemies, but I don't worry about these as they usually enjoy it. I try to make these more frequent than overpowered enemies. When they face overpowered threats, I try to provide hints and opportunities to escape, e.g. an enemy shouts "We've got them on the ropes. They look like they're going to run, you four, quick seal the gates so they can't escape" after which four mooks get away from combat. Maybe the players will take the hint and run. Maybe with those four out of the way, they'll just win the encounter. Just changing the situation could help as it could give players different things to work with, and someone could come up with some other solution. Failing that... I give enemies the idiot ball so they use substandard tactics and sometimes fudge a roll or two or a deus ex machina happens. Or sometimes I just let them lose. They could get imprisoned, or killed (I'd let them roll up new characters whose backstory would make them want to revive their old ones). If they're imprisoned, time for a prison break. If dead, the adventure continues with the new guys who could try to revive the old guys if they want, or some NPC the players helped out earlier revives them for free or saves them later or something. Either way, the game moves on.

A number of people here would call it railroading, cheating, or lieing to your players if you start to fudge rolls, dumb down enemies or use a deus ex machina. I mean the idea touted around here by them seems to be "players make choices, those have consequences, the GM won't meddle with either or it's a railroad."

Fuchs wrote:A number of people here would call it railroading, cheating, or lieing to your players if you start to fudge rolls, dumb down enemies or use a deus ex machina. I mean the idea touted around here by them seems to be "players make choices, those have consequences, the GM won't meddle with either or it's a railroad."

Yup I tend to subscribe to this idea. The behaviour promoted by recent D&D editions of pre-making detailed encounters fine tuned to players power levels and what not, feel weirdly artificial to me.

Though I dont know If I would call it a railroad. I thing a railroad has more to do with the flow of the plot/story/adventure. The latest Shadowrun 5th ed has a chunk of advice in its text for promoting railroading, when it says for the GM to pre-make specific plot points (A, B, C, etc) for the players to reach in the adventure, and how to make the players NOT deviate from it (even using illusionism when necessary) - This is railroading in my view.

To be honest, I always thought this pattern was created with D&D but I was wrong. Recently I got the opportunity for reading the really old editions of the game and realized it adviced the complete opposite, a more sandbox gameplay experience through the exploration of premade dungeon complexes (or hexcrawl maps). So I whink this railroading tendency is more a product of the late 80s/early 90s (the Vampire/Dragonlance era).

K wrote: I hate to break it to you, but DMing doesn't take a lot of effort. Players don't give a shit about furnishings, they spend most of combat chatting about Pokemon or making jokes and thus don't need to be paid attention to, and pulling stat-blocks from adventures you've read dozens of times is pretty easy if you spent exactly one afternoon listing the stat blocks you might use.

Well if you can design whole dungeons while simultaneously running a spontaneous combat you just pulled out of your ass, then I guess you've just got gaming superpowers. Like I said before, some people on this forum are apparently blessed with divine gifts. Zak S can spontaneously make perfect rulings in 15 seconds and you can rapidly craft dungeons in the middle of GMing a combat.

Unfortunately, the majority of us have not been touched by such divine inspiration. If I even tried doing what kinds of things you're suggesting, I would be too stressed to enjoy DMing. I like to describe the action that's going on in combats, have my NPCs make conversation and taunt the PCs and otherwise try to roleplay. I just can't do that if I'm too busy trying to draw a dungeon map and design a treasury simultaneously with doing all the number/mini juggling of running a combat. That's a lot of work, and I can barely catch a breath with all that multitasking.

I take an hour or more to design a dungeon without trying to do something else at the same time. If you're the Usain Bolt of adventure design, then hey man, that's great for your players, but that's far from the norm.

And if you're that quick, I'd suggest you start churning out modules to sell. You could make yourself a small fortune if you can crank out a module a day. Might as well put those superpowers to good use.

There's a big difference between crafting a dungeon and pulling a random map out of a big stack of old modules. Creating a dungeon map on the fly is time consuming if you want it to make any sense, but using an existing map just requires remembering that there was a reasonable map of a castle in [module]. Populating maps is also quick because you just have to make notes like "three archers and some pikemen," then look up appropriate stat blocks from your giant list of stat blocks to use when the encounter actually starts. It's not rocket science, and even if it's not perfect it's one dungeon instead of a rule that will haunt your table forever.

Fuchs wrote:A number of people here would call it railroading, cheating, or lieing to your players if you start to fudge rolls, dumb down enemies or use a deus ex machina. I mean the idea touted around here by them seems to be "players make choices, those have consequences, the GM won't meddle with either or it's a railroad."

I try to keep fudging to a minimum. If I have to fudge more than say, two rolls in one encounter I stop, and let the players lose if the dice continue to suck. Dumbing down enemies is something that I'm more okay as I can usually attribute a viable RP reason, e.g. the enemy is confident and toying with the players (accompanied by taunting them), or they're expecting a bigger threat later on and trying to preserve their spells, potions, etc. If I use a deus ex machina, I try to justify it based on earlier events and if I cant, I note it down and try to think of a good reason as to why it happened later on and that may become plot relevant.

I have little doubt that K is a super DM of sorts, which is the result of years of playing. If I guess correctly, he basically has some sort of mental index so he knows which books has exactly what he needs, and he also has notes of all the stuff he made and used in previous campaigns, so he can go pretty far without making anything new on the spot. However, these days with bookmarked pdfs, web srds, encounter generators, searchable databases sorted by CR and type, etc. you don't need to have years of experience with a system to do it (though those will of course help you do it better). Heck, I once got a friend to DM who doesn't know any of the rules (I handled those despite being a player). He flipped through statblocks and said, "Okay, you guys get attacked by this thing!" We all had fun despite him not knowing any of the rules, even though they were there and they were used.