PDA

View Full Version : I Want to Play Too: A GM's Workload



Cluedrew
2021-01-01, 08:43 AM
So there have been many statements over the years that have never quite sat right with me. Things like "the GM has put in the work so they should get final say" or "I don't like improvisational systems because they ask me to do the GM's job" and it took a bit of thinking but I think I have the problem: Why must being a GM be a job?

By job I mean "requires work". Particularly any work that has to be done outside of a session because of the amount that has to be done. This does not include going over and above because you want to. For instance you can run a game with a simple plot, go rescue the princess from the dragon type thing (and you can probably come up with a more original story than that in the moment) but you can also plan an epic tail with Macovelian plans and soap opera level of tangled relations. Maybe your players like that and it makes the game better for them, but the game works without it.

OK so why is it bad? Role-playing games are a form of entertainment that tends to have a fairly high bar to entry. Having homework to do outside of that isn't going to help with that. Also making running a game take less time would help me start one. I'm not going to go on long as although there is some debate how important it is, I think it is pretty self evident it is an advantage.

Despite that though I think it is something people seem to forget it. So I would propose the following as a design ideal (something that a system should aim for even if in reality you can't get it every time): No preparation should have to be done outside of a regular session.

So preparing encounters - whether combat, social, stealth or a chase scene - should be possible to do on the fly. NPCs shouldn't have to be created ahead of time. Nor should PCs for that matter, and this would be a great time to point out that doing in during a session does not mean its instantaneous, just that you don't have to break the flow of the entire session to do it. So organization and timing can be important as well as the amount of work. So PC creation can be bigger because it doesn't happen as often and people often do it all at the same time.

I guess it all comes down to this: the GM is a player too. Sure "player" often means the other players and we say "run" a game instead of play. But it is a form of entertainment, something people do for fun. And lowering the bar would let more people join and take less out of those who are already here (or let them spend more of their time and energy on the pieces they want). To me it sounds like a great idea.

[Also yes this is kind of a remix of my last thread after I thought about it more.]

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-01, 09:14 AM
The only things I really prep mechanically for sessions are maps, because being online means I need digital maps. In person I did those on the fly, drawing on a wet erase map.

I plan lots of stuff, but it's more power relationships, world building, etc. And that's not work, it's most of his I have fun. So for me, I get to play all week where the players only get to play during the session.

But in general, there's a tension between having detailed, consistent, lush worlds and narratives and being able to build it on the fly. And systems don't really help with that, unless they're highly prescriptive about how the world works and what's there. Which is railroading by another name. Silly comedy games can do it quick, because consistency and deep world building are secondary if not counterproductive.

Trafalgar
2021-01-01, 09:34 AM
If you have ever GM'd, you understand that it involves a mix of preparation and improvisation.

On one hand, I like designing a world, drawing maps, creating political, religious, social settings, etc. So I don't feel like that's work. There have been times where I have been unable to find a group to DM, but I find that I am still designing in my free time. So I don't look at it as "work". If you do look at that as a chore, you might not like being a GM.

On the other hand, no matter how much prep work you put in, your players are going to find something you didn't prep. For example, lets say you put days of "work" into creating a very detailed city.
-You say "You enter the market square at the center of the city. There are numerous brightly colored stalls with Merchants selling their wares. Too many customers to count are wandering around buying selling, haggling, etc. A crazed looking street preacher is standing on a box giving a sermon to several onlookers. Two bored looking city guards stand at one end watching."
-Player: "Are there any beggars?"
-You: "Ummm... sure."
-Player: "I go up to a beggar and talk to them, see if they have any information"
-You: Crap. Didn't prepare any beggar NPCs.
So what I do now is prep only NPCs that are important to the plot. I use Random NPC generators for everything else. I prep a rumor table with information, both True and False, that of gossip going around the town. Usually I prep enough rumors for a 2d10 roll.

That's how I prep social encounters now but I tend to use a lot of random generators for other encounters too.

But that's what I do. This is a video by Zee Bashew (https://youtu.be/vKQv4GC0N9Q) on his DM style which is even more sandboxxy.

Grod_The_Giant
2021-01-01, 02:08 PM
No preparation should have to be done outside of a regular session.
That's one of the main selling points of STaRS (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/268061/STaRS-The-Simple-Tabletop-Roleplaying-System)!

Speaking more generally, tho, I find that purely mechanical prep is a relatively minor part of the job. I have to dedicate much more brainpower to all the other elements of the game--designing adventure sites, worldbuilding, coming up with interesting NPC personalities, working out the plot-chains of "well, if the players do THIS, than this faction will do THAT..." (And, these days, preparing virtual tabletop maps). And outside of GM-less storytelling engines like Fiasco, those parts don't really change. I'm currently running Exalted 3e, which is about as complicated a system as you can get, and I'll regularly go weeks without having to prepare any new stats or encounters, while still laboring over sandbox elements and plot-chains.

Cluedrew
2021-01-01, 02:26 PM
But in general, there's a tension between having detailed, consistent, lush worlds and narratives and being able to build it on the fly. And systems don't really help with that, unless they're highly prescriptive about how the world works and what's there. Which is railroading by another name. Silly comedy games can do it quick, because consistency and deep world building are secondary if not counterproductive.I am going to go out a limb and say having a fixed setting is not railroading, even if you didn't tell the players about it ahead of time. Consider Skyrim and one of those Final Fantasy games called "Final Hallway" by their detractors. Despite the fact these games say the same amount of about what is in their world (which is to say everything) there are not even close to as linear as each other. Now one could construct a world that forced the plot to be linear or you could go out of your way to avoid that as most good RPG settings do.

Only other thing I have to say in actual defence of all this is play actually spends a lot of time on existing setting information. Usually they don't rush from town to town, plunging it for historical details before running to the next one. Or no group I've seen plays that way, maybe yours does. Point is the I've been able to improvise towns at a level of detail we would explore even in a prepared game. Except that one time the GM did not prepare enough detail so I started filling it details as the local guide and got the OK to keep it.


If you have ever GM'd, you understand that it involves a mix of preparation and improvisation.I have played and run systems where that is definitely true. I also have run an easy to prepare system which if players showed up now I could be running in... minutes, I'd have to print some character sheets out and that kind of thing. So its not inherent to role-playing even if there are systems and styles that assume it that is in a sense their choice.


-You: Crap. Didn't prepare any beggar NPCs.Why would I need to prepare a beggar NPC ahead of time? I've got there social standing to go then I just need to decide on a general appearance (probably poorly dressed and malnourished), maybe give them a reason to be a begging if I don't want to use straight economic hardship, maybe they are a wounded solider from the last war (or monster attacks depending on the setting) so I'll add some obvious injury to their description, maybe their shoulder is bent and they never move their arm after a mace blow. Maybe they feel a bit angry for being abandoned after putting their life on the line for the city, maybe still proud and begging hurts their pride. In that case they would probably be happy to help the PCs a bit for a few coins so they feel like they are working from them. Then it just comes down to what type of information the player wants and if someone could know that by hanging around town. Or being in the army if it not about current events so much.

That was a pretty easy paragraph for me to write, describing story elements is much easier for me than communicating ideas.

MoiMagnus
2021-01-01, 03:04 PM
There are multiple "kind" of preparation:

(1) "Basic knowledge" preparation. It includes reading the rules in details, reading your character sheets / monster block to know all your powers, etc.

(2) "Content" preparation. It includes creating NPCs (stat block and/or personality & background), going through potential story-lines, world-building, etc. For players, this is mostly building their character.

(3) "Gameplay" preparation. It includes drawing maps in advance, getting tokens/figurines, preparing a set of music to play, etc.

The (1) is a reasonable expectation for everyone around the table if the system is complex. "How much time does it takes" depends a lot on the frequency of the game sessions, and "How important it is" on the length of those. => The easiest way to get rid of it is to use a simpler system.

The (2) is the one of the reasons why peoples have a sense of ownership of some part of the game they played. The world created by the DM in his free time belongs to him/her, and same for the character created by a player. Contrary to the story created during the game sessions, those creations have (usually) a unique authors. This is a great source of emotional attachment, for good and bad.
=> It's much more about player (and DM) personality and expectations than anything else.

The (3) is on the "not necessary at all, but nice to have". The minimal I had was during my first year of high school were we used to play in a 6m^2 room with no tables, few chairs, the rulebook and dice, and pens and character sheets. You don't need more to have fun, but that doesn't mean I want to be back at this minimalistic setting.

J-H
2021-01-01, 03:34 PM
I do a lot of advance prep. I'm not very comfortable coming up with an NPC's name, appearance, and motivation(s) on the fly while 5 people are waiting for me to say something.

Quertus
2021-01-01, 06:21 PM
The chef is an eater, too - wouldn't the world be better if all food was TV dinners?

No, there is value to the effort - it produces things that you cannot get out of effortless GMing.

King of Nowhere
2021-01-02, 10:33 AM
I find that purely mechanical prep is a relatively minor part of the job. I have to dedicate much more brainpower to all the other elements of the game--designing adventure sites, worldbuilding, coming up with interesting NPC personalities, working out the plot-chains of "well, if the players do THIS, than this faction will do THAT..." (And, these days, preparing virtual tabletop maps).

exactly. and while some of those parts are fun, not all of them can be fun for all different masters. for me, i tend to come up with worldbuilding in my free time, but setting up adventure hooks - in particular, adventure hooks that are consistent with all the worldbuilding - is a chore. and then preparing stuff to flesh out those adventure hooks, because improvising won't get you the same quality.
sure, you can improvise all and do a half-assed job of it, but it will be half-assed.
most important to make dming stressful, though, is the responsibility part. if you are a player and didn't work on your background story, you'll lose some opportunities, but that's on you. if you are the dm and you don't do your homework, the other players will feel it. so you now have a duty to produce content. even pleasureable activities become less pleasureable if they are a duty.

that said, there are perks to dming, and your hard work is certainly rewarding - and generally rewarded, if you have decent players.
but the goal of requiring no preparation work? forget it. there is no way to achieve that without watering down the content horribly. running a premade module where the players never try to come up with anything off the rails would be a perfect example of it, and no, it does not compare to taking things more seriously.


The chef is an eater, too - wouldn't the world be better if all food was TV dinners?

No, there is value to the effort - it produces things that you cannot get out of effortless GMing.
very good similitude

Cluedrew
2021-01-02, 10:38 AM
That's one of the main selling points of STaRS (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/268061/STaRS-The-Simple-Tabletop-Roleplaying-System)!I've got my eye on it. I haven't bought it yet because I've got stuck a list of things to get through yet. Question, is the built in setting the spirit western that had the thread in World Building?

I'm working on my own system than includes content generation as part of the base ruleset. Now there are some thematic reasons for this so I don't think it was the original reason I did it (I can't quite remember what lead to this idea) but the fact it lets someone who isn't great at coming up with locals run the game is in my mind a definite bonus. The inspiration for that came from Blades in the Dark which happens in Duskwall, it is designed to happen in Duskwall and they have all sorts of tables in the back to help you generate parts of the city and even if you don't use them looking through them will help you get a feel for the city.


(2) "Content" preparation. It includes creating NPCs (stat block and/or personality & background), going through potential story-lines, world-building, etc. For players, this is mostly building their character.This is the type I am mostly referring to as I'm approaching this mostly from a system design stand point. Grod hinted at what I think the two biggest groups are: ideas and stats. Knowing what, on a narrative level, is around the corner or who this person is or what the evil plan is. Then the work you have to do to translate it into a form that is useable by the game. That work can very a lot depending on the system.

As can the first group of learning work, so maybe I should think about that too? I haven't yet.


The chef is an eater, too - wouldn't the world be better if all food was TV dinners?

No, there is value to the effort - it produces things that you cannot get out of effortless GMing.Two things, the first is I am talking about how GMing as a hobby isn't a job and shouldn't be viewed as such. Meanwhile chef means "one whose job it is to cook" so the argument does not apply. The second point is for what I think you were going for, hobbyist cooks.

And? I understand that you can get more out if you put more in. Is that supposed to be some counter-argument to making it easier? Does making it easier to reach at least mediocracy make it harder to go beyond that? Something else?

Quertus
2021-01-02, 11:25 AM
Two things, the first is I am talking about how GMing as a hobby isn't a job and shouldn't be viewed as such. Meanwhile chef means "one whose job it is to cook" so the argument does not apply. The second point is for what I think you were going for, hobbyist cooks.

And? I understand that you can get more out if you put more in. Is that supposed to be some counter-argument to making it easier? Does making it easier to reach at least mediocracy make it harder to go beyond that? Something else?

My phone was about to die, so I though I'd try the quick approach.

The long answer is, it's complicated. Possibly more complicated than I can hold in my head all at once. So I'm not even going to try to explain it; instead, I'll simply start laying a few stones down on the path, so that people can start to see the direction I'm headed, and take it as far as they want.

"you can get more out if you put more in" - sounds like you understand this. Hopefully, I don't have to define this component too well, and people will just know what I mean about cardboard cutouts vs thought-out locations, characters, and the like.

One would expect, therefore, that systems which require more time from the GM would raise the floor on the final products.

Of course, there are two issues here.

One is the economics law of diminishing returns: putting more into X provides shrinking benefits. This is especially true when enhancing X comes at a cost to Y.

The second is that X doesn't just have a single value - it's a complex matrix of values. Having perfectly detailed tactics and combat capabilities does me little good for evaluating how they respond to a love confession, or to starvation conditions within a siege.

Thus, one would expect a system to optimize its required prep to focus attention on the parts that most need to be developed.

However, the problem with that line of thought is that the required focus is not entirely system dependent. Oh, sure, one might say that the three pillars of D&D are Combat, Exploration, and talky bits, but those won't be exclusive or all have equal focus at any given table, nor will every GM need the same amount of time and prep to run any given level of these three. (My players often comment that I'm very good at extemporaneous - boy do I have them fooled).

Further, a given element may have vastly different values for different elements of play - unless you roll a '1' when attempting to push the orc warrior off the cliff, and gently massage his back instead, I don't think his preferences are terribly likely to matter in most games.

So, afaict, the question at this point is, how can a system encourage and facilitate - but not necessitate - a GM spending the correct amount of time on an element, given the play of the system and their table, and the GM's own talents and proclivities?

Anything seem too outlandish, completely unfounded, or obviously missing so far?

Cluedrew
2021-01-02, 09:58 PM
So, afaict, the question at this point is, how can a system encourage and facilitate - but not necessitate - a GM spending the correct amount of time on an element, given the play of the system and their table, and the GM's own talents and proclivities?Well if I tried to restate my entire initial post in a single sentence it might look like this:

Systems should take the minimum necessary time to run/play.

People want systems that are consistent, easy to learn, cover common situations, are balanced (whatever that looks like) and so on. But this is just something that gets off that list. Actually maybe I should expand it to/pair it with systems to be easy to run. And sure we will probably never making trivially easy to run a great game with no prep-work, but why not try? Even a small win will make it easier, make it take less time or make your game better.

Other than that I'm a bit confused about people insisting all good games require predation to run though. I've been in several games that were great but did not have an significant planning going on. So proof by counter-example, its possible for at least a certain type of game.

zarionofarabel
2021-01-03, 02:08 AM
I have a simple solution.

Don't run games using systems that are mechanically complex or complicated and being a GM becomes very easy.

I have run games using nothing but on the spot improv since 1988. My trick has always been to use systems that I can master. By knowing the rules I can easily just make things up on the fly. By using systems that don't need tons of stats for an NPC to "exist" I can easily make them up on the fly. By avoiding things like miniatures combat and dungeon crawling I can avoid having to prepare maps and terrain, making it much easier to improv stuff.

However, this also limits my player base as only players who are willing to play the kind of games I run will be satisfied at my table. But I consider it a small sacrifice to make to save my sanity and time.

So, yeah, that's my advice to a GM that wants to avoid a lot of "work" in their hobby. Find systems that are easy for you to master so you can improv easily. Also remember that not every NPC needs any stats really, most will need no stats at all, and many more will need a single skill or two. If prepping maps and terrain and "balanced" combats has become "work" and not "fun" then you are using the wrong system or playing the wrong style of game.

There are also a few systems where absolutely no prep is encouraged. My personal favorites include Burning Wheel and Mouse Guard, both need very little prep as they are built to highlight an emerging narrative as opposed to a GMs prepared plot. I don't have any experience with them, but have been told by numerous individuals, that the Powered By The Apocalypse systems are also built with emerging narrative as a central design aspect.

There are thousands of different RPG systems out there, find ones that are easy for you to use and being a GM is no "work" at all.

Grod_The_Giant
2021-01-03, 12:43 PM
I've got my eye on it. I haven't bought it yet because I've got stuck a list of things to get through yet. Question, is the built in setting the spirit western that had the thread in World Building?
Sort of? The rules are presented as setting-agnostic, but Cowboys and Fairies is in there as the sample setting and fractal*, and most of the examples use a character from there too.

*My technique for building fleshed-out campaign settings: you start with a premise, come up with three plots going on related to said premise, three places for each plot, and then three people for each place.


I'm working on my own system than includes content generation as part of the base ruleset. Now there are some thematic reasons for this so I don't think it was the original reason I did it (I can't quite remember what lead to this idea) but the fact it lets someone who isn't great at coming up with locals run the game is in my mind a definite bonus. The inspiration for that came from Blades in the Dark which happens in Duskwall, it is designed to happen in Duskwall and they have all sorts of tables in the back to help you generate parts of the city and even if you don't use them looking through them will help you get a feel for the city.
One of these days I really need to read Blades in the Dark--I really only keep hearing cool things. Any sort of system to help with the non-mechanical work of GMing can only help.

Quertus
2021-01-03, 04:18 PM
Well if I tried to restate my entire initial post in a single sentence it might look like this:

Systems should take the minimum necessary time to run/play.

And that is exactly what gets my first reply.


Other than that I'm a bit confused about people insisting all good games require predation to run though. I've been in several games that were great but did not have an significant planning going on. So proof by counter-example, its possible for at least a certain type of game.

And why isn't all food microwave dinners?

There are several answers.

One - the one that I am focusing on - is that some people find some value in some of the things that you cannot get out of a microwave dinner.

Sure, you can run *certain types* of great games with no prep.

Sure, you can run *certain types* of cons during an elevator ride.

Sure, you can cast *certain types* of spells in under 6 seconds.

Maybe you can even make *certain types* of good food with 5 minutes in a microwave.

But that offers no benefit to those who want *other types* of good.

Also, designing for and focusing on "no prep" atrophies the ability to produce those other types of fun. But that might be beyond the scope is this thread.


People want systems that are consistent, easy to learn, cover common situations, are balanced (whatever that looks like) and so on. But this is just something that gets off that list. Actually maybe I should expand it to/pair it with systems to be easy to run. And sure we will probably never making trivially easy to run a great game with no prep-work, but why not try? Even a small win will make it easier, make it take less time or make your game better.

I think that the key here is to make sure that your system involves no *unnecessary* complexity, no *unnecessary* effort. Having to do the work to get to 9*9=81 instead of just estimating it to 100 is necessary work in many instances, unnecessary effort in others. Understanding every use case for the system, and not *forcing* 81 when 100 would always do - and not *forcing* 100 when sometimes you actually need 81 - is the key to me not responding with :smallannoyed::smallfurious:

Or, in other words, I like the simplicity of 2e D&D, where I can almost just write "Wizard" on my character sheet, and be done… coupled with the complexity of 2e D&D, where, instead, I can choose kits / skills & powers variants / create custom classes with the DMG. 3e scratched the latter itch, in spades, but left the former playstyle… rather unfulfilling.

So, for me, at least, I want to see how the system can facilitate both prep and no prep, and do so efficiently. How to make a system that doesn't get in the way.

(I hope this makes sense - I'm pretty sleep deprived ATM)

Tanarii
2021-01-03, 09:30 PM
The chef is an eater, too - wouldn't the world be better if all food was TV dinners?

No, there is value to the effort - it produces things that you cannot get out of effortless GMing.
Conversely, if you're cooking for your kids every day and all they want is Grilled Cheese or McDonalds, there's no much point in cooking a 5 star meal.

Analogy breaks down because you hopefully don't force your players to eat healthy meals for their own good. :smallamused:

Quertus
2021-01-04, 12:49 AM
Conversely, if you're cooking for your kids every day and all they want is Grilled Cheese or McDonalds, there's no much point in cooking a 5 star meal.

Analogy breaks down because you hopefully don't force your players to eat healthy meals for their own good. :smallamused:

Not at all - that is a perfect example of how the analogy still fits (I think): not all meals suit all individuals, cooks can get distressed at how their efforts are unappreciated, and many eaters feel forced to eat the food presented to them, despite how unsuited to their pallets it may be.

Certainly, I put a lot of effort into things for my games that my players may or may not appreciate, because the world-building is first and foremost for… well, I was going to say, "for me", but I think that it is more accurately "for the world". Whereas there are several "spices" that, much like in my cooking, I often forget to use.

Although I may still be running on sleep dep (I can't remember, which isn't a good sign) so this might make absolutely no sense.

Cluedrew
2021-01-04, 08:51 AM
To zarionofarabel: Yeah its great. I play a lot of rules light systems and you could say this is me trying to articulate part of why I like them.

To Grod_The_Giant: Perhaps I just should of said included setting. Also I had great fun reading Blades in the Dark, its kind of like a slightly heavier Powered by the Apocalypse system. Its really leverages the fact it is a specialty system and has a fixed setting and fixed campaign premise to improve the rules.

To Quertus: I have several scattered comments to make.
Reducing the required work still has value before it hits the ideal of no preparation. I believe the quote is "That perfection is unachievable is no excuse not to strive for it." - The Paladin. Put more directly some improvement is still an improvement.
Why would the design lessons not be transferable between game types? Not all of them will be but there should also be some. Having less rules or extremely PC driven doesn't work everywhere but there are lessons that can work elsewhere. For instance any system can structure NPCs differently so that they can be built differently and that is usually a good trade-off because you made many NPCs and they are not usually that important.
May you get a good night's sleep.

Bugbear
2021-01-04, 11:19 AM
Like others have said, a GM is a player in the same way a chef also eats the meal. The chef does a lot of work cooking for two hours, while say four other people just relax: but everyone eats the meal.

Improv is a skill, just like both game knowledge and first hand game experience. Some GMs can improv effortlessly, for some it's a struggle and some just can't do it. Like anything else.

Lots of RPGs are complex, it is one of the fundamental things that makes them different then other games.

But not all RPGs are complex. 1E D&D, as well as the OSR reto clone games are great examples of simple games that need zero prep time. Even 2E D&D can count.

As a GM that runs both OSR games and 5E games, I can tell you the big thing is what the players want and expect from the game. In general:

In a OSR game, the GM can just say "it's a fire troll and it shoots fire at you" and roll some damage. The players just give slight nods and the game goes on. The GM does not need to "make" anything...the fire troll just happens, it can do anything or be anything...really just like anything in the game.

5E D&D, well the players want and expect rule details. They want and expect to be fighting things and having encounters exactly defined by the crunchy book rules. They want that fire troll to have a set stat block that follows the rules....even if they don't get to see it.

A perfect comparison is the group sees a fire troll: The OSR group is simply "monster, lets attack". The 5E group is quick to make Intelligence Checks to find out "secret and unknown things" about the creature and hope for some type of crunchy rule advantage.

Though, in the end, my advise is to simply play the zero prep games.

kyoryu
2021-01-04, 12:31 PM
One of the things that's always lost in the prep discussions is that there are different types of prep, and they are not all created equal.

Pelle
2021-01-04, 03:14 PM
The type and amount of prep that is conducive for a satisfying game depends on the game you want to play.

If you want to play a mystery investigation game, where the players need to be clever to solve the mystery, the GM needs to prep an actual mystery.
If you want to play a mystery investigation game, where the point is to collaboratively improvise a story where the characters solve a mystery, you don't need to prep it.
Both games can be fun, but they are different types and have different needs. I find the first the most fun, so ditching all prep is not really an option for me. It's however a matter of realizing the minimum of what I need to prep to support the style of game I want to play. Mostly, it's the scenario structures, relation between npcs and locations and so on. Most of the details and statblocks can be improvised.

If you want to play an OSR game where the players can make clever decisions on where to explore and how much risk to take, the GM should have something prepped to allow for meaningful decisions. I like how Chris McDowall in Electric Bastionland tells the GM step for step what to prep. Yes, there is some prep, but it is condensed to what will actually have payoff for the game, while still leaving lots of room for improvisation and providing tools for being further inspired.

Jason
2021-01-04, 03:20 PM
My favorite GM prep quote is from Eisenhower: "Plans are worthless, but planning is everything."

Lord Raziere
2021-01-04, 03:36 PM
I've learned myself that you shouldn't plan for scenarios, you should plan out characters with motivations and abilities who are going to try to do what they do regardless of whether the PC's interfere or not, and whether they stop or help is up to them. Instead of tailoring things to them, make a world where they are a deliberately unseen variable or outside context problem to the situation- and that its up to the PC's whether they have an effect or not. In short, make a bunch a things that are meant to be derailed.

kyoryu
2021-01-05, 10:42 AM
I've learned myself that you shouldn't plan for scenarios, you should plan out characters with motivations and abilities who are going to try to do what they do regardless of whether the PC's interfere or not, and whether they stop or help is up to them. Instead of tailoring things to them, make a world where they are a deliberately unseen variable or outside context problem to the situation- and that its up to the PC's whether they have an effect or not. In short, make a bunch a things that are meant to be derailed.

Bolded for emphasis.

One of my tricks to do so is to make the agendas of various PCs deliberately incompatible. That way, even if the PCs do nothing, at least one of my plans will get derailed.

It stops me from being too attached to any of them.

Grod_The_Giant
2021-01-05, 06:47 PM
I've learned myself that you shouldn't plan for scenarios, you should plan out characters with motivations and abilities who are going to try to do what they do regardless of whether the PC's interfere or not, and whether they stop or help is up to them. Instead of tailoring things to them, make a world where they are a deliberately unseen variable or outside context problem to the situation- and that its up to the PC's whether they have an effect or not. In short, make a bunch a things that are meant to be derailed.
Oh yeah. My strategy is usually to map out two-thirds of an adventure: I introduce the setting and the issue at hand, present a couple possible paths to solve it, and then sit back and see what happens. Not having a specific ending planned out makes you much more receptive to Crazy Player PlansTM.

King of Nowhere
2021-01-05, 08:12 PM
I've learned myself that you shouldn't plan for scenarios, you should plan out characters with motivations and abilities who are going to try to do what they do regardless of whether the PC's interfere or not, and whether they stop or help is up to them. Instead of tailoring things to them, make a world where they are a deliberately unseen variable or outside context problem to the situation- and that its up to the PC's whether they have an effect or not. In short, make a bunch a things that are meant to be derailed.

yes, that's how i plan too. however, that requires a lot of preparation. i need to figure out npc plans and motivations, and place them correctly, and then double check everything to make sure there aren't any glaring problems with those plans - it wouldn't do to introduce the villain as a master manipulator only to have his plans be riddled with oversights because i didn't think them through. and then i have to find ways to make the players stumble on those plans.

an example of this, my most recent story arc was caused by two brothers with a tricky plan for becoming gods. they engineered some bacteria that zombified animals; adventurers are sent in to deal with the zombie plague, they turn undead a lot. the bacteria are made specifically to gather the divine energy unleashed by turning attempts; they collect it and bring back to the two brothers. repeat for several decades, you build up a respectable hoard of divine energy.
that was the general plan, and it was simple enough. but i had to spend a lot of time figuring out the details.

how are the brothers escaping detection? they live in an area of wild magic that effectively masks the divine energy they gather, makes them impossible to scry, and also provides a perfectly good cover for why zombies keep spawning. but then, how are they living there when i established that even the most powerful casters were unable to overcome the hazards?
and how are they recovering the bacteria? my first plan was for the bacteria to teleport, but upon reexamination, i realized that was a terrible idea; first, the bacteria have limited energy to gather, they can't spend it on high level spells. second, they gather divine energy, that's less suitable to teleport. third, they can't reliably teleport inside the wild magic. eventually i came up with a very convoluted system where the bacteria become spores, that are collected by rainwater and brought to the river running inside the wild magic area, where the magic field reawakens them, and then they start following chemical signals emitted by some algae that the brothers also manufactured, and good thing i know enough biology to come up with all that, or i'd still be slamming my head against a wall.
and then, the brothers are not evil, they took measures to avoid their zombie plague to spread. how, exactly? the explanation involved a lot of notions of epidemology, something in which we all got a crash course in this last year. on the plus side, this caused the zombies to act weird, something that the players could notice and investigate.
and through all this, i had to be very careful to not contradict any of the established limitations i set for magic, or any of the facts i established about the wild magic area.
there are a ton of small details i had to arrange to make the whole plot consistent. the very exhistance of two brothers is one such detail: it was a single dude at first, but i realized i needed someone highly competent in both arcane and divine magic, and a mystic theurge just wouldn't be powerful enough in either.

in fact, for me most of my planning time comes from this. what exactly is the villain doing, and how are those other guys reacting, and how can i have the pcs stumble through all this, and how are those people going to reach when a wild element comes into their careful plans?
and this kind of preparation is completely independent from the system. We may be playing freeform, but i'd still have to figure out all that stuff. playing 3.5 i have additional issues with preparing stats, but that's not a problem, and that's work i don't mind doing. i also don't mind coming up with scenarios; it's the details the problem.
and having some content generator would never help with that, of course. sure, you can run a generic hex crawl with randomly generated content. it's the rpg equivalent of microwaved dinners.

in my experience on both sides of the table, the best adventures come from this kind of setup. you have a living, complex world. you have plenty of schemers with carefully laid plans. you unleash the pcs through all of that and watch how they tangle things. and there's no way to cut any preplanning when doing that. not if you want the same content quality.

Quertus
2021-01-05, 10:43 PM
I've learned myself that you shouldn't plan for scenarios, you should plan out characters with motivations and abilities who are going to try to do what they do regardless of whether the PC's interfere or not, and whether they stop or help is up to them. Instead of tailoring things to them, make a world where they are a deliberately unseen variable or outside context problem to the situation- and that its up to the PC's whether they have an effect or not. In short, make a bunch a things that are meant to be derailed.


Oh yeah. My strategy is usually to map out two-thirds of an adventure: I introduce the setting and the issue at hand, present a couple possible paths to solve it, and then sit back and see what happens. Not having a specific ending planned out makes you much more receptive to Crazy Player PlansTM.

So… "characters and motivations and abilities" isn't bad. Depending on how much like a module I'm writing things out, I may do something similar, or something more like "(intended) actions, results, reasons" or "intention, method", coupled with resources, personality, and… information gathering / attention / when will the various actors realize that one or more of their various plans need adjustment.

However, a different trick that I'll use is to plan everything out, 100%, as "this is what happened in the alternate reality where the PCs didn't exist". Then my very strong goal in playing the game is to see *what* the party changes.

Of course, I'm also the type to run several sample parties through an adventure, to both familiarize myself with the content, and figure out some of the questions that might get raised during the adventure.

False God
2021-01-06, 12:39 AM
The chef is an eater, too - wouldn't the world be better if all food was TV dinners?

No, there is value to the effort - it produces things that you cannot get out of effortless GMing.

But the chef gets paid and if they are good enough can gain renown around the globe, with their recipies being cooked by many different chefs for many different people.

The chef may love to cook, but he ain't doing it for free.

Production has value, we live in a capitalist society, the negative connotation of DMing being a "job" doesn't come from the fact that it's unrewarding, it comes from the fact that you don't get paid.

KaussH
2021-01-06, 12:49 AM
But the chef gets paid and if they are good enough can gain renown around the globe, with their recipies being cooked by many different chefs for many different people.

The chef may love to cook, but he ain't doing it for free.

Production has value, we live in a capitalist society, the negative connotation of DMing being a "job" doesn't come from the fact that it's unrewarding, it comes from the fact that you don't get paid.

While it isnt common, some GMs get paid. Swag and snacks are common ( often in games i have been in, the gm doesnt need tp toss in for food) . I have seen tables toss in money for a gm, gms for pay, heck i even raised money for childs play running cuthulu in the past.

Tanarii
2021-01-06, 03:59 AM
I like how Chris McDowall in Electric Bastionland tells the GM step for step what to prep.
I just spent a few hours checking it out, and I'm ... very unimpressed. It has too much of the same failings as PtbA. Lots of amorphous stuff that don't actually mean much. They're both like reading Life Inspirational Quotes on social media.

Pelle
2021-01-06, 04:55 AM
I just spent a few hours checking it out, and I'm ... very unimpressed. It has too much of the same failings as PtbA. Lots of amorphous stuff that don't actually mean much. They're both like reading Life Inspirational Quotes on social media.

I don't agree with your assessment, but YMMV. For preparing the game it has lots of bullet point sections with specific things you should do. It follows up with procedures for mapping out different type of regions and providing tools to give inspiration. EB also has the most succinct "GM advice" I've read, particulary the Information-Choice-Impact doctrine.

kyoryu
2021-01-06, 11:20 AM
EB also has the most succinct "GM advice" I've read, particulary the Information-Choice-Impact doctrine.

Ooooh that sounds good.

I also think the PbtA advice is good. Like the Principles can send very Inspirobot if you look at them abstractly, but when you actively use them to guide you in play, they help focus you in specific directions.

Tanarii
2021-01-06, 07:03 PM
I don't agree with your assessment, but YMMV. For preparing the game it has lots of bullet point sections with specific things you should do. It follows up with procedures for mapping out different type of regions and providing tools to give inspiration. EB also has the most succinct "GM advice" I've read, particulary the Information-Choice-Impact doctrine.
The Information-Choice-Impact was exactly what I was talking about.

Agreed the mapping suggestions were solid. Except possibly the idea of trying to put everything on your map directly.

That said it's a crazy simple system that would take no effort to introduce folks too. Since I'm unlikely to revive my campaign once gaming in stores is feasible again, it can go on my list for one shot playtesting to see how it works in the field, once that day comes again. (PbtA is already on that list.)

Pelle
2021-01-07, 04:06 AM
Ooooh that sounds good.

I also think the PbtA advice is good. Like the Principles can send very Inspirobot if you look at them abstractly, but when you actively use them to guide you in play, they help focus you in specific directions.

What is great about PbtA style Principles is that they clearly show what playstyle the game is designed for. You may not like the playstyle and choose not to play the game, or want to deviate from some of the principles, but at least you are making an informed choice about it. Using this style of Principles is also being used more and more in new OSR games I see.

The ICI essay is also more or less the same as on the blog (https://www.bastionland.com/2018/09/the-ici-doctrine-information-choice.html).


The Information-Choice-Impact was exactly what I was talking about.

Agreed the mapping suggestions were solid. Except possibly the idea of trying to put everything on your map directly.

That said it's a crazy simple system that would take no effort to introduce folks too. Since I'm unlikely to revive my campaign once gaming in stores is feasible again, it can go on my list for one shot playtesting to see how it works in the field, once that day comes again. (PbtA is already on that list.)

It's a great small system, perfect for one-shots and introducing new people. It's really easy to modify to suit your needs. There are also lots of hacks of it (and its progentior Into the Odd) out there. The most successful is probably Mausritter, and I've even made my own personal cosmic horror investigation version as well.

Cluedrew
2021-01-07, 08:56 AM
in my experience on both sides of the table, the best adventures come from this kind of setup. you have a living, complex world. you have plenty of schemers with carefully laid plans. you unleash the pcs through all of that and watch how they tangle things. and there's no way to cut any preplanning when doing that. not if you want the same content quality.And yet I can say that in my experience on both side of the table the best adventures came about when the GM did not prepare anything ahead of time. Although as a GM the best campaign I've ever run was a one-shot so maybe I would do some work between sessions on a longer campaign.

I mean their weren't schemers with carefully played plans. The most important relationships are between the player characters, not only in terms of screen time but in terms of how it shapes the plot. Its a different style of play and it probably makes it a bit easier to run low prep, but I can definitely say it isn't lower quality.


I also think the PbtA advice is good. Like the Principles can send very Inspirobot if you look at them abstractly, but when you actively use them to guide you in play, they help focus you in specific directions.I think a good example is the "Always say what honesty demands." which at first sounds like a feel-good statement but really its saying that you don't hide or alter information in this system. There is no GM screen physically or metaphorically and that is how the system is supposed to be played.

EggKookoo
2021-01-07, 09:06 AM
Out of necessity my current campaign runs fairly short sessions. We rarely break the 3-hour mark. I find that helps prep immensely, as I only need to work out enough for that shorter play time. When a session ends, I know where the PCs are and what they're about to do -- which is usually a pretty short-term thing like "explore the next level" or "go to the big social event." It makes it easier to plan out the following session, which in turn will be a relatively short amount of time.

Back when we'd run 6+ hour sessions, it was much easier for the players to spin off someplace unexpected, without me having the opportunity pause the action and work up appropriate content. It was much more stressful.

Morgaln
2021-01-07, 10:43 AM
And yet I can say that in my experience on both side of the table the best adventures came about when the GM did not prepare anything ahead of time. Although as a GM the best campaign I've ever run was a one-shot so maybe I would do some work between sessions on a longer campaign.

I mean their weren't schemers with carefully played plans. The most important relationships are between the player characters, not only in terms of screen time but in terms of how it shapes the plot. Its a different style of play and it probably makes it a bit easier to run low prep, but I can definitely say it isn't lower quality.



I agree wholeheartedly, but then I am a GM who does very little prep so obviously I am biased.

Anyway, one of my best remembered sessions involved no prep; no dice rolls; no NPCs or other people to interact with. All that happened was that the characters were walking through a cave that would give each of them the illusion that the other characters were badmouthing them. For each of them I played up some minor resentiment that had already crept up in the party. My players jumped at the opportunity to have a pure RP session playing their characters to the fullest in an intra-party conflict. It often gets cited as the best session we ever played.
Then again, I am blessed with awesome players that don't need much input from me. I'll just throw out a few hooks, see what they bite on, and we'll quickly have an emergent story we're all happy to engage with.

kyoryu
2021-01-07, 11:50 AM
What is great about PbtA style Principles is that they clearly show what playstyle the game is designed for. You may not like the playstyle and choose not to play the game, or want to deviate from some of the principles, but at least you are making an informed choice about it. Using this style of Principles is also being used more and more in new OSR games I see.

The ICI essay is also more or less the same as on the blog (https://www.bastionland.com/2018/09/the-ici-doctrine-information-choice.html).

That's a quite solid article, and lines up with my view of roleplaying really well.

Specifically, for the three 'types' of interactions I talk about, it's really the essence of Type 1 interactions:

GM: "This is the situation. What do you do?" (Information, prompt for choice)
Player: "I do the thing." (Choice)
GM: "This is the new situation. What do you do?" (Impact, information, prompt for choice)

... and that's also PbtA in a super nutshell.

King of Nowhere
2021-01-07, 01:07 PM
And yet I can say that in my experience on both side of the table the best adventures came about when the GM did not prepare anything ahead of time. Although as a GM the best campaign I've ever run was a one-shot so maybe I would do some work between sessions on a longer campaign.

I mean their weren't schemers with carefully played plans. The most important relationships are between the player characters, not only in terms of screen time but in terms of how it shapes the plot. Its a different style of play and it probably makes it a bit easier to run low prep, but I can definitely say it isn't lower quality.


What happens when the players interact with the world? how can you keep stuff consistent? how do you shape the plot if you don't know precisely what's in the campaign world? how can your players even make informed decisions without plenty of worldbuilding and npc details?
or, if you run one-shot so you don't have to explore, how do you make meaningful relationship between player characters?
the style of play at your table is so different, i can't even understand what you actually do.

anyway, the no prep style would not fit the taste of my group. so let's just say that you can work with low prep with some play styles, but not with others.

KaussH
2021-01-07, 03:21 PM
What happens when the players interact with the world? how can you keep stuff consistent? how do you shape the plot if you don't know precisely what's in the campaign world? how can your players even make informed decisions without plenty of worldbuilding and npc details?
or, if you run one-shot so you don't have to explore, how do you make meaningful relationship between player characters?
the style of play at your table is so different, i can't even understand what you actually do.

anyway, the no prep style would not fit the taste of my group. so let's just say that you can work with low prep with some play styles, but not with others.

That is one of the issues I ran into as a young gm. Lack of consistancy long term on unscripted game worlds.
Not saying you need to write down everyone living in a town. But some "everyone knows" notes are always good. A basic if not 100% true map,ect.

EggKookoo
2021-01-07, 04:25 PM
What happens when the players interact with the world? how can you keep stuff consistent? how do you shape the plot if you don't know precisely what's in the campaign world? how can your players even make informed decisions without plenty of worldbuilding and npc details?

One thing I do is make a timeline of stuff that's happened leading up to the first session. Every significant NPC gets at least a birth year (and hopefully location) in the timeline. Even ones I don't expect the PCs to interact with until later. If the PCs strike off in a new direction that prompts me to come up with new content (NPCs, events, locations, etc.), they get put into the timeline before the next session. I also update the timeline as we play, so it keeps up with "now."

I find doing this keeps my worldbuilding from spiraling out of control. It becomes pretty clear if I'm adding redundancies, and allows me to leverage content I've already created. Having birth years for my main NPCs helps me keep track of their ages, which informs how I roleplay them. I can see where my history gaps are. It helps me tie past events together if feasible, which in turn keeps my meta-plot streamlined. I can't recommend it enough.

Pelle
2021-01-07, 04:56 PM
That's a quite solid article, and lines up with my view of roleplaying really well.

Specifically, for the three 'types' of interactions I talk about, it's really the essence of Type 1 interactions:

GM: "This is the situation. What do you do?" (Information, prompt for choice)
Player: "I do the thing." (Choice)
GM: "This is the new situation. What do you do?" (Impact, information, prompt for choice)

... and that's also PbtA in a super nutshell.

Yeah, there are a lot of similarities between the OSR and PbtA, especially wrt "play to find out what happens". I think the main difference in the interactions above is how the players make their choice; for the former the players are trying to make clever choices in order to achieve their characters' goals, while in the latter the players are trying to make clever choices for their character in order to make a satisfying narrative.

kyoryu
2021-01-07, 05:01 PM
in the latter the players are trying to make clever choices for their character in order to make a satisfying narrative.

Not necessarily, and I edge away from that style of play in any case. I think "satisftying narratives" come out of interesting characters pursuing their disparate goals and other characters having other, mutually exclusive goals.

There are differences, however, in that most OSR games are much more averse to present player-facing (as opposed to character-facing) decisions, and the fact that playbooks in PbtA tend to revolve more around narrative roles instead of combat roles, as well as the general playstyle being generally more aimed at emulating fiction rather than "reality". While D&D (and thus OSR games, though they may diverge) focused around exploration and delving, PbtA games usually have very little of that assumption.

Cluedrew
2021-01-07, 07:12 PM
the style of play at your table is so different, i can't even understand what you actually do.It doesn't actually look that different. Players send their characters out into the world, ask questions and I (or whoever is running the game, but using the games I run as an example) answer them. If the one-shot format makes a difference I don't think it is terms of pacing or anything, its just the total amount of content (number of NPCs, locations, events) is small enough that I can remember all of them off the top of my head. So I keep consistency just by thinking "Does this contradict anything?" quickly shuffling through my mental list of facts about the setting.
You know I think there is one important point that some people have missed. The argument is not actually for zero preparation, its for less required preparation. And tools to make any additional preparation easier/faster/more efficient. Zero preparation is just the "ideal" but there are a lot of trade offs you have to make in reality.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-07, 09:33 PM
But what if prep is fun? Low to zero prep systems tend to discourage prep, not just not need it. Which is very much not ideal for me, since I enjoy prep almost as much as play. And in some ways more than play. Play gives me inspiration and direction for my prep, and prep brings things to life during play.

Right now I'm doing inter session "dreams and visions" posts, pulling in experiences from the past and warnings/omens for the future related to the characters and the upcoming session. And it's a lot of fun and the players seem to enjoy it as well.

Quertus
2021-01-07, 09:35 PM
Regarding Ici:

Generally like the notion; have a few qualms.

"Knowledge and Perception Rolls are the worst offenders of not understanding the importance of Information. When I see them in use I just wonder what could be lost by just giving the players the information?" - the Agency of different characters producing different results, or even having different options available to them?

"No easy decisions. If any of them have one really obvious solution then you need to make the situation more interesting!" - 1) disagree that every decision should be hard, just as I disagree with the level treadmill; 2) players will often complicate things on their own just fine - a trivial decision suddenly becomes complicated because one PC is honorable, or afraid of water, or doesn't trust your NPC.


You know I think there is one important point that some people have missed. The argument is not actually for zero preparation, its for less required preparation. And tools to make any additional preparation easier/faster/more efficient. Zero preparation is just the "ideal" but there are a lot of trade offs you have to make in reality.

A lot of "make things more efficient" techniques… don't. That is, a blender and a microwave may be great, but good luck using them to make a steak. The GM needs to have practice with all of the tools, and the game needs to not suddenly crash when they attempt to plug in an oven.

As a really silly example, think about just how much of 3e would need to be redone for "low magic" to "just work".

Personally, I am saying more of, "never take your eyes off the stove - just because you think you don't need it now, doesn't mean that someone won't need it later, and how hard will it be for them to remodel your kitchen to get one in?".

Cluedrew
2021-01-07, 10:34 PM
To Quertus: If I understand what you are saying correctly, and honestly I'm not sure if I am, my confusion is that people seem to be going "You can't make a stake with a blender, this shows that blenders are pointless". And I think tools and meals would be have a much more generous matching in here.

King of Nowhere
2021-01-08, 09:16 AM
It doesn't actually look that different. Players send their characters out into the world, ask questions and I (or whoever is running the game, but using the games I run as an example) answer them. If the one-shot format makes a difference I don't think it is terms of pacing or anything, its just the total amount of content (number of NPCs, locations, events) is small enough that I can remember all of them off the top of my head. So I keep consistency just by thinking "Does this contradict anything?" quickly shuffling through my mental list of facts about the setting.


that makes all the difference in terms of preparation. with a long term campaign, there's no way i'd be able to do that if I hadn't already prepared most answers, and a solid, accurate background to guide me through the stuff i didn't anticipate.
it also makes a huge difference in terms of the game, because of long term objectives; in a one-shot, you simply don't have them.

KineticDiplomat
2021-01-08, 10:28 AM
I dare say the “prep” culture comes from D&D and it’s many sub variants - encounters are very often centered around properly balancing a multitude of special possibilities, particularly as the game becomes “martials need not apply”. Add in that it runs on what we would think of as the MMO or looter-shooter gameplay loop, and there has to be some thought to the pacing of rewards. In a system like that, not prepping the mechanics of anticipated interactions - in some detail - is likely to detract from the game. Or the player’s view on the fairness of it. On top of that, the deliberate decision to make everything that is not magic-interact-combat an at best tertiary system means that many of the more interesting parts of GMing are rendered irrelevant.

And that is absolutely brutal, soul destroying work to keep up for any length of time. It becomes a lose-lose. In a d&d system, non prep makes for notably worse games. But the prep required burns out any GM who isn’t a student, eventually killing the game.

As you drift away from D&D design ethos, prep typically becomes much less of an issue. There are exceptions of course, but as a trend. And as prep becomes less of an issue, the game-fatal cycle GM “death by second job” becomes less of an issue.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-08, 10:55 AM
I dare say the “prep” culture comes from D&D and it’s many sub variants - encounters are very often centered around properly balancing a multitude of special possibilities, particularly as the game becomes “martials need not apply”. Add in that it runs on what we would think of as the MMO or looter-shooter gameplay loop, and there has to be some thought to the pacing of rewards. In a system like that, not prepping the mechanics of anticipated interactions - in some detail - is likely to detract from the game. Or the player’s view on the fairness of it. On top of that, the deliberate decision to make everything that is not magic-interact-combat an at best tertiary system means that many of the more interesting parts of GMing are rendered irrelevant.

And that is absolutely brutal, soul destroying work to keep up for any length of time. It becomes a lose-lose. In a d&d system, non prep makes for notably worse games. But the prep required burns out any GM who isn’t a student, eventually killing the game.

As you drift away from D&D design ethos, prep typically becomes much less of an issue. There are exceptions of course, but as a trend. And as prep becomes less of an issue, the game-fatal cycle GM “death by second job” becomes less of an issue.

Except...the amount of encounter and reward prep I do for D&D is...not zero but really small. Maybe 10 minutes per session, and 90% of that's setting up the online combat tracker for convenience. Figuring out what stat blocks are going in takes...30 seconds? a minute? Maybe? I think you're thinking of 3e. 5e just generally works as long as you're not trying to push the difficulty curve (and neither are your players). Optimization arms-races kill games.

The vast majority of my planning is world building and scenario building. Figuring out what the world contains and how the world will react to player actions. And working on ways of slow-dripping backstory into the ongoing events. And in anything other than a one-shot or purely player-driven (ie completely communal world building on the fly) game, those will always be necessary.

For example, I've got a player who doesn't know what his backstory is--he's entrusted me to drip that in at the opportune moments. His character is amnesiac. If I didn't plan for that and figure out how and where he's connected, I'd not be able to do that. You can't run a vibrant, living world without doing prep.

Quertus
2021-01-08, 11:39 AM
To Quertus: If I understand what you are saying correctly, and honestly I'm not sure if I am, my confusion is that people seem to be going "You can't make a stake with a blender, this shows that blenders are pointless". And I think tools and meals would be have a much more generous matching in here.

More, "don't throw away the oven - or make it impossible to plug one in, no matter how good an idea you have for a blender.".

A blender is a tool. It's a handy tool to have. Inventing one (or a can opener) in a world without such tools, or inventing a better one, is a great goal.

But destroying all ovens, or building kitchens that can't house ovens, just because you've invented a blender, is short-sighted.

Also,


You can't run a vibrant, living world without doing prep.

kyoryu
2021-01-08, 01:07 PM
Except...the amount of encounter and reward prep I do for D&D is...not zero but really small. Maybe 10 minutes per session, and 90% of that's setting up the online combat tracker for convenience. Figuring out what stat blocks are going in takes...30 seconds? a minute? Maybe? I think you're thinking of 3e. 5e just generally works as long as you're not trying to push the difficulty curve (and neither are your players). Optimization arms-races kill games.

The vast majority of my planning is world building and scenario building. Figuring out what the world contains and how the world will react to player actions. And working on ways of slow-dripping backstory into the ongoing events. And in anything other than a one-shot or purely player-driven (ie completely communal world building on the fly) game, those will always be necessary.

For example, I've got a player who doesn't know what his backstory is--he's entrusted me to drip that in at the opportune moments. His character is amnesiac. If I didn't plan for that and figure out how and where he's connected, I'd not be able to do that. You can't run a vibrant, living world without doing prep.

I just needed to quote and bump this because it's spot on.

The vast number of low prep games don't advocate no prep. That's an outlier for sure. What they advocate is a different type of planning - mostly avoiding "a specific set of encounters".

Even AW, possibly the poster child, doesn't advocate zero prep. It advocates zero or minimal prep before the 'first' session, but after that there is some prep that the MC needs to do to tie everything together from the threads generated. Most low prep games are similar - initial scenario and sufficient worldbuilding up front (or after a session zero/one), and then between games most of your prep is stepping the world forward based on the events of the session. As well as some amount of "fleshing out the bits that are starting to come into focus".

Telok
2021-01-08, 01:24 PM
I dare say the “prep” culture comes from D&D and it’s many sub variants - encounters are very often centered around properly balancing a multitude of special possibilities, particularly as the game becomes “martials need not apply”. Add in that it runs on what we would think of as the MMO or looter-shooter gameplay loop, and there has to be some thought to the pacing of rewards.

Actually I think you're mostly talking about D&D prep post 2000. Which, granted, is like 20 years of Microsoft telling you that the current Windows is the best OS ever so just deal [removed rant].

You're talking about the concept of 'balanced encounters' and planning pc resource drain & xp gain. There are a number of games where dm prep is needed or useful that have none of those considerations. Paranoia, Traveller, Champions, Pendragon, Call of Cthulhu, etc., etc., need certain minimum levels of prep but don't care about it for 'balance', resource drain, or xp gain. You do it because you need npcs that the pcs might roll against, interesting locations to explore or explode, and perhaps how the pcs get there might matter.

My experience is that less prep requires more dm improv skills and more dm system mastery. All of which is on various spectrums of more<->less depending on the dm, the system, and how the group plays the game. Plus, more consistent systems tend to have lots of stuff other people have prepped and put online over time. I ran a Champions game for 6 or 8 months, I only built two npcs, everything else was from the thousands of npcs/monsters other people have made & posted or published.

One thing I don't generally see people discussing is long term prep vs. short term prep. Short term prep might be setting up or statting encounters or prepping battle maps. Long term is your overall plotting (if any), the game world, and major recurring npcs. It turns out that you can shift a fair bit of short term prep into long term with a bit of planning.

I often set up a selection of common npc stats and limit my monster selection during world building. So everything that isn't a unique & very important creature is in a condensed beastiary for the setting (about 4 to 8 pages total, depending). I tend to use lots of modular map bits, just scribbling bits in to connect them keeps stuff not looking samey. Online image searches also yield a lot of maps, but I often run modern/future games so I can grab industrial floorplans for stuff so that's probably easier.

And keep everything you've ever prepped. Reuse is awesome at reducing workload.

King of Nowhere
2021-01-08, 02:21 PM
Except...the amount of encounter and reward prep I do for D&D is...not zero but really small. Maybe 10 minutes per session, and 90% of that's setting up the online combat tracker for convenience. Figuring out what stat blocks are going in takes...30 seconds? a minute? Maybe? I think you're thinking of 3e. 5e just generally works as long as you're not trying to push the difficulty curve (and neither are your players). Optimization arms-races kill games.

The vast majority of my planning is world building and scenario building. Figuring out what the world contains and how the world will react to player actions. And working on ways of slow-dripping backstory into the ongoing events. And in anything other than a one-shot or purely player-driven (ie completely communal world building on the fly) game, those will always be necessary.


hey, i'm running a 3e game, and still my mechanical planning is fairly small. and really, all that stuff that you are supposed to do to build and balance encounters, i've never find any of it to be useful. The players are always going to do something unexpected that will change the assumptions, so trying to play the resource management game is akin to trying to build a card castle during a earthquake. What I do is eyeballing all of that. if the players find ways to deal with the encounters easily, good for them, congrats on their brilliant strategy. If I overshoot the difficulty and end up giving them a too though encounter, they can congratulate them on how they managed to survive against the odds. if they didn't manage to survive against the odds, there are resurrections spells for a reason. if i decide to do something more elaborate, dungeon maps, traps and stuff, i am having fun doing it.
I also have to spend most of my prep time in scenario building.

incidentally, i also disagree on the optimization arms race. ok, it does kill some games, but that happens because some people want it and some people don't, and those who don't want to race for optimization have to put in work they don't want. yes, that can kill games. on the other hand, some people do enjoy the optimization arms race, and disallowing that would kill their games. it would be a bit like coming to a marathon race and offering everyone a lift on a car, because surely those poor guys panting and sweating would not choose to run if they could avoid it. it's like when your mother came to your room and tried to persuade you to stop your nerd activities and go out because she couldn't understand nerd activities (90% of nerds had similar quarrels with their parents, so I assume you likely know what i'm talking about).
it's already been stated that there are many parts of preparation, and everyone enjoys different parts and find different parts a chore. so you can't remove any part of preparation without breaking someone's favourite toy, but it's worth stating again.
but there are tools to reduce preparation. if you don't like worldbuilding, you can familiarize yourself with some of the big settings and run adventures there. if you don't want to prepare mechanics, you can only play monsters straight out of the manual and pregen maps.


You can't run a vibrant, living world without doing prep.
this condenses nicely what i was trying to say about worldbuilding and long term campaigns

Cluedrew
2021-01-08, 08:37 PM
You can't run a vibrant, living world without doing prep.Sounds like a challenge.

I suppose if you had sufficient skill at world-building and character creation (in the narrative sense) then you could take care of that. In fact there is nothing innate about the problem that would change it from any other type of preparation so of course it is possible even if fewer people have, though some combination of talent and training, have reached that point.

The world building would also be easy to... turn into a system matter. Mostly I am thinking of Blades in the Dark where the city of Duskwall is the setting for the campaign and you could do something similar as long as moving from place to place isn't a part of the campaign. Or you could do something in the rule book to help generate new locations.

Character creation is a bit harder because it is easier to fix a map than to fix all the people in it but with the right tables of prompts and names that were built for different groups in the setting it could be done as well.

Tanarii
2021-01-08, 08:41 PM
You can't run a vibrant, living world without doing prep.Hard disagree. Prep time for encounters and adventuring sites is what's time consuming. Worldbuilding that isn't potentially part of adventures doesn't require any prep time. It can all be winged.

You do have to keep good notes of what you just made up though.

EggKookoo
2021-01-08, 10:59 PM
Hard disagree. Prep time for encounters and adventuring sites is what's time consuming. Worldbuilding that isn't potentially part of adventures doesn't require any prep time. It can all be winged.

Exact opposite for me. Combat encounters are trivial, in the "work" sense. I spend more time than I need prepping them but I like it. I cannibalize published stuff a lot when I need a dungeon or other similar location, and failing that someone probably has a map laid out somewhere online. But I could generate a dungeon-crawl realtime.

What takes time for me are the plot threads that I dangle in front of the players. I need to make them intriguing. Provide enough info to get them interested but also not give too much away. All the stuff that provides context for why they're having the above encounters and running through those enemy hideouts or forgotten ruins.

Tanarii
2021-01-09, 07:17 AM
Exact opposite for me. Combat encounters are trivial, in the "work" sense. I spend more time than I need prepping them but I like it. I cannibalize published stuff a lot when I need a dungeon or other similar location, and failing that someone probably has a map laid out somewhere online. But I could generate a dungeon-crawl realtime.I cannabalized like crazy too, but prepping the campaign still probably too over a hundred hours, maybe significantly more. And keeping it up to date takes some time too.

Worst is making sure stat blocks are handy and you've reviewed all possible encounter stat blocks prior to a session. D&D isn't BECMI any more, where you can read them on the fly from the rules book. If you haven't at least skimmed them all and thought about them a little before a session, your encounters will fall flat, and probably need to print them out or make a summary sheet of your own. And review terrain and tactics and any special things that can happen. You can't run a vibrant, living adventure without spending some time before a session reviewing the adventure details.

That's one thing where west marches campaign advice kinda falls flat. Yes, it's front loaded on campaign prep. But it doesn't make pre-session prep almost nothing as claimed.

King of Nowhere
2021-01-09, 08:39 AM
Hard disagree. Prep time for encounters and adventuring sites is what's time consuming. Worldbuilding that isn't potentially part of adventures doesn't require any prep time. It can all be winged.

You do have to keep good notes of what you just made up though.

there is a vast difference between something that you considered, analyzed, carefully checked for internal consistency, and something you made up on the fly.
granted, even my campaign world would unravel if scrutinized closely enough, but it holds together pretty well. winged worldbuilding will fail to analyze how the various factors interact with each other. and you can tell the difference. the players can tell the difference. i am good at it, and i see my players get much more involved in the world when i dm. players talk about the politics of the various power factions as if they were a real thing - even though most of those won't ever end up being relevant - and they don't do it with other dm.

and that goes for every aspect of the game. you can produce something mediocre with little effort, but you can always produce something better with more effort.

Tanarii
2021-01-09, 09:06 AM
there is a vast difference between something that you considered, analyzed, carefully checked for internal consistency, and something you made up on the fly.
granted, even my campaign world would unravel if scrutinized closely enough, but it holds together pretty well. winged worldbuilding will fail to analyze how the various factors interact with each other. and you can tell the difference. the players can tell the difference.
It's not a lore book they're going back and rereading. Worldbuilding isn't going to get any detailed analysis unless it's part of the adventure, and then it's adventure building.

Internal Consistency in adventure building may or may not be noticeable. World building probably won't unless they take extensive notes and write a story about it. Oh sorry, "campaign journal".

Or maybe you guys are using the term to mean something other than I am. World lore is a relatively small part of the actual table experience except as it happens to intrude on the adventure. DMs tend to think it needs to read like the lore books companies sell. Thats not what the players are experiencing at all.

As an example, try reading The All Guardsmen Party some time.

EggKookoo
2021-01-09, 09:12 AM
Worst is making sure stat blocks are handy and you've reviewed all possible encounter stat blocks prior to a session. D&D isn't BECMI any more, where you can read them on the fly from the rules book. If you haven't at least skimmed them all and thought about them a little before a session, your encounters will fall flat, and probably need to print them out or make a summary sheet of your own.

I eventually took the plunge and got into DnDBeyond. It helps with stuff like that immeasurably.

Now they just need to create some actual DM tools...

Cluedrew
2021-01-09, 09:42 AM
I got to say some pro-preparation people keep talking like there is some special quality threshold that you can't cross without preparation, which I think is untrue and unfair to anyone who has run a good no/low preparation game.

But there are many things you might need in a campaign and various ways to get them. For an example of something people almost always get ahead of time, resolution rules. As someone who does a lot of homebrewing yes, that is something I may or may not prepare myself ahead of time. Most often I don't and pick an existing system but on the other hand if you are a "rulings not rules" type you will be improvising part of it. And it to has its intermediate/hybrid approaches with toolbox systems and rules frameworks.

I don't have a particular argument here just putting in an odd idea that might put some perspective on things. My position pretty much remains the same, you should try to make preparing for a session easy and fast for everybody.

Tanarii
2021-01-09, 11:33 AM
I got to say some pro-preparation people keep talking like there is some special quality threshold that you can't cross without preparation, which I think is untrue and unfair to anyone who has run a good no/low preparation game.I should have blue texted my snark. :smallsmile:

I'm pro-adventure prep in post-BECMI D&D. But that's because the rules require it so much. Some more than others.

A rules light system wouldn't.

I'm anti-world prep. Because that's all just backdrop stuff, and has relatively low impact on table time. DMs enjoy it because it's fun. But there's a reason "start small" is the most common advice for campaigns. You only need to start large if your adventuring scope is large. E.g. setting up west marches.


I eventually took the plunge and got into DnDBeyond. It helps with stuff like that immeasurably.

Now they just need to create some actual DM tools...my experience is Online tools are usually worse than flipping pages back and forth in a book for actual access during session.

They're fantastic for snipping what you need into your own condensed document and printing a hard copy though.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-09, 11:52 AM
I should have blue texted my snark. :smallsmile:

I'm pro-adventure prep in post-BECMI D&D. But that's because the rules require it so much. Some more than others.

A rules light system wouldn't.

I'm anti-world prep. Because that's all just backdrop stuff, and has relatively low impact on table time. DMs enjoy it because it's fun. But there's a reason "start small" is the most common advice for campaigns. You only need to start large if your adventuring scope is large. E.g. setting up west marches.

my experience is Online tools are usually worse than flipping pages back and forth in a book for actual access during session.

They're fantastic for snipping what you need into your own condensed document and printing a hard copy though.

I started small. One village and its surroundings.

And my players immediately said "what's over that hill?" Pretty soon I had half a continent. And then a whole universe.

And with a living world, where each group of PCs change the world for future groups and retire as NPCs, the amount of world state required is high. And I often have multiple groups going and their actions interacting. And my players find it important. And relevant.

Styles differ. A "just the adventure site, everything else is a flat backdrop" game would bore both me and my players. I want to be able to answer any question they ask about the world or their place in it in a way that coheres with the rest of it. That takes world prep, and lots of it.

As for stat blocks: I'm not so into complex, heavy-challenge combats. Simple monsters, each with a single trick. And if I screw up, well, NBD. It'll inevitably be in the players favor.

Tanarii
2021-01-09, 12:05 PM
Sounds like what you're talking about is having to adventure prep a large section of the world, an open table campaign.

Kraynic
2021-01-09, 12:47 PM
Regarding Ici:

Generally like the notion; have a few qualms.

"Knowledge and Perception Rolls are the worst offenders of not understanding the importance of Information. When I see them in use I just wonder what could be lost by just giving the players the information?"

- the Agency of different characters producing different results, or even having different options available to them?

<snipped out the rest>

I wanted to focus on that statement, because it definitely rang true to me when I read it. I think the reason it did is that I am currently running a Pathfinder 1E game as a favor to a couple guys that usually are in the DM chair and wanted to be able to play in a game together. That statement definitely is in reply to the method behind how information is handled in that edition of Pathfinder, so I assume it also applies to D&D 3.5 and 3.0. Probably D&D 5E and Pathfinder 2E, but I have much less personal knowledge of those.

Perception is all about what the characters can see and hear. This is broken up into separate skills in some games/editions, and other senses (smell at the least) may also be involved or can be accessed through a feat. Perception is an all or nothing skill usually. It is almost always a binary result. Either the character picked up on something going on in the area, or the character didn't. If the character did, then it is up to the player to decide if they share what has been noticed, and how that character responds. On the failure side of that mechanic, there is no agency other than to take whatever is coming. The character doesn't know about it anyway, other than the player possibly knowing that perception was rolled. If the perception was a success, then there is some agency in deciding what to do with the knowledge gained.

From a "running the game" perspective, perception can be problematic. If there is information the characters/players should really have, should I require perception at all? If I am wanting to have different tiers of information available through perception, I need to be sure that the DC bar is set low enough that someone will get it even if the dice are being uncooperative. Of course, if the information isn't all that important to the adventure, then it won't matter if it is missed. But if it isn't important, why did you come up with it in the first place?

When running a game, I find that sort of perception to be pretty limiting. I prefer to throw pretty much all information in front of the players as they investigate a scene. I tend to use perception for a character to notice something when I didn't do a good enough job describing the scene for a player to pick up on it. That, then turns perception from a "did something get noticed" skill into a "who noticed it first" sort of skill. At the very minimum, it can be a "how much did they notice" instead of a "did they notice at all" skill. If that doesn't give players more agency, then I am at least operating under the delusion that it does.

Knowledge skills in Pathfinder are kind of baffling to me. The default idea is that every character is stupid. It doesn't matter your stats or your skill ranks, you know nothing about a subject unless you have rolled high enough to recall information. And sometimes that is tiered to where you get a small scrap of information for rolling a certain number and more scraps for every so much you exceed the target number by. Otherwise, you get nothing, and in the case of some, you actually are supposed to get lied to by the GM RAW. In other words, the characters are stupid, and are generally assumed by the rules to have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever.

I have found that I much prefer games that at least imply that your character is competent. I prefer game systems where on a failed roll, I may not give exactly what the player was after, but can tell them "your character would know...", and be able to remind them of something their characters should know. That also allows me to give them something concrete and possibly something that is speculation. And they would know which was which. No need for me to lie to my players, just here is something you know to be true and something you think may be true based on past study or experience and what you are seeing now. I also don't see how that gives less agency than other ways to give out info.


I expect this plays into different playstyles and expectations. I don't particularly care if a character I play is "powerful" within the system I am playing, but I do expect them to be competent. Any system that makes my character seem incompetent at something they are trained to do rubs me the wrong way. Perception and Knowledge skills can certainly feel that way in Pathfinder 1E in my experience.

EggKookoo
2021-01-09, 12:47 PM
my experience is Online tools are usually worse than flipping pages back and forth in a book for actual access during session.

Not for me. I'll open up each creature (PCs and NPCs/monsters) in its own tab in the browser, although as we all become more comfortable with it at our table I find I open the PC sheets less and just trust the players to find their own stuff. Spells are also typically tooltipped, so if I need to know the details on something I can usually just pull it right up. It's much faster than flipping through books, especially as I sometimes can't remember if something's in the PHB or DMG or wherever.

Lest this come across as a sycophantic endorsement of DnDBeyond, it definitely has its share of drawbacks. A lot of items don't really "work" with their interface (for example, you can't list which spells are stored in a Ring of Spell Storing aside from just tagging it with a note). And the DM tools are skeletal. Supposedly they're working on all these things but development is pretty slow. And features aside, the biggest hurdle was paying for online versions of the rulebooks I already physically own. I understand that's not DnDB's problem (they're basically just a bookstore) but I do wish WotC put some effort into working that out somehow.

King of Nowhere
2021-01-09, 08:51 PM
I got to say some pro-preparation people keep talking like there is some special quality threshold that you can't cross without preparation, which I think is untrue and unfair to anyone who has run a good no/low preparation game.


no, what i claim is different in a slight, but very important way. I claim that there are several things that make a good game, and that SOME of them can't be done without preparations.
Some people will care deeply about those things. Some people won't give a damn. So, you can obviously run a no preparation game and have a very good time, provided the people in the game do not care about the preparation-intensive stuff.

I cannot give a gaming example, but i can give a literary example by comparing writers.

Brandon Sanderson is big on planning. He starts a saga with a good idea of the direction the plot will go. he will have multiple worldbuilding elements, many of which will not be particularly related to the plot, but will add to the general feel. magic is clearly defined, what it can and cannot do, and how that impact society. there will be a deep exploration of the various cultures and the way they interact, and the magic will influence the world in well-considered ways. Elements are introduced that will not be used until many books later. things are hinted, so that in retrospect, upon rereading, you can notice a small detail that you missed and realize how it had a big impact five books later.
And that requires planning. You can't honestly tell me you can improvise that without any kind of preparation work and keep the same level of detail and consistency.

On the other hand we have Terry Goodkind. He clearly improvises. His fantasy cultures are mostly generic medieval for anything that's not related to the plot. entire nations are suddenly introduced in a "oh, this had always been there all the time" fashion, then they get never mentioned again when they cease their function for the plot. magic does whatever the plot needs, with only the most loose of rules. He obviously makes up stuff on the moment when it is convenient to the plot.

Still, Goodkind's books are plenty acclaimed. they get also lots of criticism, but most of it is for a bad case of author filibuster (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AuthorFilibuster). Because there's plenty of readers who don't care about reading all the worldbuilding stuff, or catching the small details in a reread; most readers do not reread books. some readers even find all that obnoxious.
But, if you do indeed like to read about the various fantasy cultures and how magic interacted with social mores, and to reread the books later and look for the small clues dropped here and there? Then you do need books written with preparation work.
You can get good books without any of that stuff, but you can't get that stuff without preparation.

Some of my finest dming moments were being able to reveal some of the stuff going on behind the scenes. "oh, remember when that dude hired you for this mission? he actually was manipulating you into clashing with the evil empire, he was already opposing the evil empire and wanted to recruit you to that cause too. And what better way than making the empire angry at you and then offering to pool resources?" "oh, remember that time you were inexplicably ambushed even though no enemy should have known your wereabouts? That dude was the mole; as you now know, he always was secretly the big bad, and while he had yet to uncover his nefarious plan at the time, he figured you'd be a potential danger to it, and it would favor him if you were to be dispatched by a third party."

Or, to stay with the food metaphor: there are some very good foods that are also fast and easy to prepare. you can eat very well without ever putting much effort. on the other hand, some other dishes do require extensive preparation. if you do happen to like them, there's no way out

NigelWalmsley
2021-01-09, 08:56 PM
I think it is pretty obvious that prepared things and improvised things have different properties. Quality is subjective, but if you happen to like something that requires preparation, the fact that there are also good things that can be achieved without it is largely irrelevant.

Tanarii
2021-01-09, 10:16 PM
Because there's plenty of readers who don't care about reading all the worldbuilding stuff, or catching the small details in a reread; most readers do not reread books. some readers even find all that obnoxious.
Like Robert Jordan's obsession with clothing styles.

Cluedrew
2021-01-09, 10:22 PM
The thing is I don't actually disagree with almost anything people have been saying. Bits here and there sure but the broad strokes make sense. But I feel they are kind of missing the point. Any I think I finally figured out why: This is a system design thread more than a GMing advice thread. {Checks thread tags.} Although in hind sight I see how there could of been confusion about that. The gming tag was because this is a GM facing part of system design and because it is also about other tools a GM could use to help them.

I am aware there exist cases where you can't get rid of out of session work (post 1, paragraph 4, see the parenthesized note). But that doesn't mean I'm not interested in cases where it is possible or reducing the work even if we can't get it to zero. I want to make systems that are easy to play and that includes the GM.

NigelWalmsley
2021-01-09, 11:34 PM
Honestly a lot of the stuff that makes DMing hard is system-agnostic. Very little of the complexity in building an engaging world, or writing an enjoyable adventure, or designing memorable characters is a result of the mechanics of the particular system you're using.

One thing I will put forward that I think a lot of people under-estimate is the value of D&D's Monster Manuals (or something like them). There's a great deal of value in being able to open up a book, pick a monster, and have the PCs fight that monster. That's why, despite the level of mechanical complexity, I think D&D is often simpler to run in practice that systems that people claim are more flexible.

Tanarii
2021-01-09, 11:38 PM
I am aware there exist cases where you can't get rid of out of session work (post 1, paragraph 4, see the parenthesized note). But that doesn't mean I'm not interested in cases where it is possible or reducing the work even if we can't get it to zero. I want to make systems that are easy to play and that includes the GM.
Whelp, like I said, a huge chunk of my prep time goes into dealing with complicated creature stats when playing D&D. And has since 2e. And it did in warhammer and palladium as well, except more so. That's a huge red flag for me that steers me away from trying say Exalted 2 or Warhammer Only War

The other large part is either building the adventure encounters, or boning up on them from whatever content I'm using.

If the game can procedurally create content on the fly, great. But my experience with that has been it's often a little lacking. Or rather, it's generally only useful in the short term. Otherwise it can quickly become repetitive.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-10, 01:11 AM
Whelp, like I said, A) a huge chunk of my prep time goes into dealing with complicated creature stats when playing D&D. And has since 2e. And it did in warhammer and palladium as well, except more so. That's a huge red flag for me that steers me away from trying say Exalted 2 or Warhammer Only War

B) The other large part is either building the adventure encounters, or boning up on them from whatever content I'm using.

C) If the game can procedurally create content on the fly, great. But my experience with that has been it's often a little lacking. Or rather, it's generally only useful in the short term. Otherwise it can quickly become repetitive.

A&B) I find it interesting that we can play the same system and have very different experiences as far as what takes prep effort. I guess I don't focus so hard on combat. I just had a session with one combat--a group of 5 level 4s vs a CR 7 draegloth. They won, as expected, but one went down to 0 and only luck with the dice kept another from going down. The rest of the session was talking to people, investigating, and some humorous scenes with a "seer"/fortune-teller. Poor lady, she got a bunch of weirdos in her shop that day. Total time prepping for the combat? 2-3 minutes. I knew the draegloth was in town and where he was (shapeshifted into a human boy) from earlier prep, so when the party went there, got suspicious, and popped divine sense and triggered combat, I just pulled a pre-designed generic "alleyway/building" map up and dropped in the token.

Then I've also had ones where two sessions were just crawling through an underwater (but partially dry by magic) lair and fighting a big nasty thing. All those monsters were homebrew. Still wasn't the majority of my prep time.

I'd say I spent more time on knowing exactly what both the villain's plans were and who the characters are and how they fit into the world, so that when they decided to get their fortunes told (not part of the plan) I could drop in subtle hints about things without either giving it all away or being inconsistent. I spent an hour or so this week writing up a pair of in-universe things between sessions--one was a bit of a conversation from the cat who hides inside one character's shadow and talks to him (long story), the other a part from a sermon from an in-universe organization. Both are linked, but they reveal little bits about the backstories and relationships between a few of the characters. I spent several hours figuring out how another character, who comes from a separate continent, got there and how I want to have his backstory intersect with things. Then I spent a few more hours figuring out other parts of the deeper backstory and capabilities (in-universe, not mechanically) of the main villain and how it intersects with where the party is.

C) Agreed. Procedural generation ends up either repetitive or nonsensical very fast. I find I have to do just as much or more curation using random tables as I do just making it up out of whole cloth.

--------------

As to your earlier comment, I don't have an open table, but I do (or did) often have multiple groups per week. Each closed, but each adventuring in the same world at the same (in-universe) time. Even right now when I only have the one (stupid pandemic), they're adventuring near where another group had an adventure last summer. In-universe, they're happening at the same time. So keeping all those timelines straight so I know what's happening where and what news people would be spreading (would Vaeltaa be still under the control of the Horse Clans? Would Auringon be open? Etc) requires mental upkeep. And if they'd have come overland, instead of buying access to the portal network for fast travel, they'd still be en-route and encounter the aftermath of the other group's efforts. And I've now got 12-14 (depending on how you count) groups that have gone through and left their mark; most of the characters are still active as NPCs (since old characters always retire and become NPCs after the campaign ends if they survive).

It's a (pseudo)-sandbox[1], and I've somehow managed to always end up with players who, like me, get joy out of exploring. And take invisible walls as challenges. If I signal "don't go there", they're going to head straight there. This particular group has so far traveled (via portal, so pretty fast) nearly 600 miles. And they're likely to head back the other way or end up on another continent. I've got people from all over the place in this party. One of their stories links to another plane (and he's got amnesia so I'm drip-feeding his backstory in); one's from the southern continent, from an area completely unexplored by the people where they are (he's the first of his kind to be seen here ever), a third has no clue how or why he awoke as a living being (as a pseudo-warforged). One doesn't know where her powers come from, and the last isn't sure of his faith and is running from his wife, who suddenly is now the local lord of a town.

[1] I build things as they approach those areas. I know vaguely what's around, but it only gets fleshed out in any detail as they get near there. If it makes sense to be level appropriate, it usually is, sort of. In a broad sort of sense. Helps that the world is generally lower-power; T3 is "legendary". I start them with a quest seed, but after that first excuse to get them out adventuring, it's up to them to pick goals. They usually run into some sort of "main quest", some antagonist that they chase or some situation they want to solve. It's not usually what I expected it to be. They keep me on my toes. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

Quertus
2021-01-10, 07:57 AM
Hard disagree. Prep time for encounters and adventuring sites is what's time consuming. Worldbuilding that isn't potentially part of adventures doesn't require any prep time. It can all be winged.

You do have to keep good notes of what you just made up though.


It's not a lore book they're going back and rereading. Worldbuilding isn't going to get any detailed analysis unless it's part of the adventure, and then it's adventure building.

Internal Consistency in adventure building may or may not be noticeable. World building probably won't unless they take extensive notes and write a story about it. Oh sorry, "campaign journal".

IME, all it takes is one player remembering one established fact that you've just contradicted with "spontaneous world-building" to ruin a game.


I got to say some pro-preparation people keep talking like there is some special quality threshold that you can't cross without preparation, which I think is untrue and unfair to anyone who has run a good no/low preparation game.

No. They're are various types of quality. You can't cook a steak with a blender. A lot of people's "let's make things simpler" involves throwing out the oven, and making the kitchen too small for the GM to install one.


--snip--

My ignorance of Pathfinder makes it difficult for me to reply meaningfully.

If I set up a "doppelgangers are taking over the nation" scenario, it's fine if you have the ability to detect it immediately, and nip it in the bud. And it's fine if you don't catch it until they have a significant power base, and are more difficult to root out. And it's fine if you don't catch it until after they've completed their takeover, and you have to rip out the entrenched structure, root and stem. And it's fine if you don't catch them all, or don't catch them at all, or even catch them, but decide that you like it better with them in charge. Poor catch it early, let them keep their posts, but warm them that you'll be watching for more interference.

I try to choose scenarios that can be fun, no matter *how* they play out, and give the players the agency to have things play out in accordance with the characters that they bring.

So, for me, those various checks are intended to allow for the agency to tell the story of *these* characters - whatever that story may be. Does the party have a handwriting expert, who notices the moment that they receive letter from, or a public notice is posted by, an imposter? For the party contain someone as paranoid about doppelgangers as most oldschool players are about water? Then I think that should be reflected in game.


no, what i claim is different in a slight, but very important way. I claim that there are several things that make a good game, and that SOME of them can't be done without preparations.
Some people will care deeply about those things. Some people won't give a damn. So, you can obviously run a no preparation game and have a very good time, provided the people in the game do not care about the preparation-intensive stuff.

That - and the rest of your post - is so much better than my "can't make a steak with a blender" response. Kudos!


The thing is I don't actually disagree with almost anything people have been saying. Bits here and there sure but the broad strokes make sense. But I feel they are kind of missing the point. Any I think I finally figured out why: This is a system design thread more than a GMing advice thread. {Checks thread tags.} Although in hind sight I see how there could of been confusion about that. The gming tag was because this is a GM facing part of system design and because it is also about other tools a GM could use to help them.

I am aware there exist cases where you can't get rid of out of session work (post 1, paragraph 4, see the parenthesized note). But that doesn't mean I'm not interested in cases where it is possible or reducing the work even if we can't get it to zero. I want to make systems that are easy to play and that includes the GM.

Oh, my comments are *absolutely* about system design: don't build a kitchen that cannot house an oven. Understand the types of food that everyone wants to make / eat before you go attempting to design an "optimized" kitchen.

The worst thing, IMO & IME, is when the rules actively get in the way.

EggKookoo
2021-01-10, 08:29 AM
IME, all it takes is one player remembering one established fact that you've just contradicted with "spontaneous world-building" to ruin a game.

IME, players are pretty good about letting small things slip, especially if I can patch it. Getting an NPCs hair color wrong the second time they talk to him doesn't bring the whole thing down like a house of cards. The big problem is if the players have based a decision on some bit of info at one point in the campaign and then later that bit of info turns out to be not real (as opposed to not true, which just means the PCs were mistaken). Even that can often be fixed but it might be some work.

Cluedrew
2021-01-10, 09:21 AM
The worst thing, IMO & IME, is when the rules actively get in the way.What preparation easing tools are you expecting? I suppose that is a good think to keep in mind but A) its true of all rules and structures in a system and B) no system can be everything to everyone so its fine if it gets in the way of something the system isn't supposed to handle.

Take the example of Blades in the Dark. It has a setting. Not a default setting but a particular setting. You play in Doskvol. Character creation (well gang creation) includes picking which district you live in and so on. Is it then a mistake that other rules assume you are playing as thieves in that city? No because that is what the system is about. And I could do that for dozens of rules across almost any system that has ever been made. I used Doskvol as an example because a prebuilt setting (baked into the system or not) is an example of a preparation saving tool. If done correctly of course.

And there are other tools we could consider:
Random content/prompt generation (its hard to go into details with this).
Asymmetric PC/NPC creation rules (separate from the final stat line being different).
Simple encounter structures.
There are probably more but that is all I can think of.

Honestly I just want people to talk about something other than how this isn't going to work on everything. I knew that coming into the thread.

Quertus
2021-01-10, 09:22 AM
IME, players are pretty good about letting small things slip, especially if I can patch it. Getting an NPCs hair color wrong the second time they talk to him doesn't bring the whole thing down like a house of cards. The big problem is if the players have based a decision on some bit of info at one point in the campaign and then later that bit of info turns out to be not real (as opposed to not true, which just means the PCs were mistaken). Even that can often be fixed but it might be some work.

No, "the second time" is not spontaneous world-building. "All hydras breathe fire" is spontaneous world-building. "But the Hydra we encountered 1.5 years ago (real life time) didn't breathe fire - and we butchered it, and didn't find the organs necessary to do so, either" is a contradiction.

Worse is when several sessions go by - and plans are made (and possibly enacted) based on the new "facts" - before the contradiction is noticed.

Worst is when things are *partially* retconned - OK, that Hydra *did* breathe fire, and *did* have those organs… but you *still* went to slay the T-Rex Dragon to get those organs to create the Flaming sword (even though you wouldn't have needed to do so).

Apparently, I game primarily with players who (like myself) would kick Terry Goodkind to the curb if he tried to GM. Because these inconsistencies make for terrible stories.

EggKookoo
2021-01-10, 09:36 AM
No, "the second time" is not spontaneous world-building. "All hydras breathe fire" is spontaneous world-building. "But the Hydra we encountered 1.5 years ago (real life time) didn't breathe fire - and we butchered it, and didn't find the organs necessary to do so, either" is a contradiction.

Not really seeing the difference in principle. In both cases, a thing was established that was later contradicted. Although strictly-speaking your example doesn't contain a contradiction so much as an exception.


Worse is when several sessions go by - and plans are made (and possibly enacted) based on the new "facts" - before the contradiction is noticed.

Worst is when things are *partially* retconned - OK, that Hydra *did* breathe fire, and *did* have those organs… but you *still* went to slay the T-Rex Dragon to get those organs to create the Flaming sword (even though you wouldn't have needed to do so).

Much simpler to handle that as "Apparently that earlier hydra didn't breathe fire, but this one does. Maybe it was a mutant. Maybe this one's the mutant? Maybe there are subspecies? Maybe it's a maturity thing?"

I mean, seeing a male adult lion without a mane doesn't mean it's impossible or reality-shattering to see a different male lion, much later, with a mane. It just means you have two different lions.


Apparently, I game primarily with players who (like myself) would kick Terry Goodkind to the curb if he tried to GM. Because these inconsistencies make for terrible stories.

Human fallibility makes this kind of stuff inevitable in a TTRPG. We've played whole fights only to realize at the end we handled a rule wrong, which means someone likely should have died. Oh well, we forgot, let's move on. It doesn't mean the rule is gone. You try to avoid it, of course, but you can't prevent it completely.

Kraynic
2021-01-10, 12:52 PM
My ignorance of Pathfinder makes it difficult for me to reply meaningfully.

Fair enough.


If I set up a "doppelgangers are taking over the nation" scenario, it's fine if you have the ability to detect it immediately, and nip it in the bud. And it's fine if you don't catch it until they have a significant power base, and are more difficult to root out. And it's fine if you don't catch it until after they've completed their takeover, and you have to rip out the entrenched structure, root and stem. And it's fine if you don't catch them all, or don't catch them at all, or even catch them, but decide that you like it better with them in charge. Poor catch it early, let them keep their posts, but warm them that you'll be watching for more interference.

I try to choose scenarios that can be fun, no matter *how* they play out, and give the players the agency to have things play out in accordance with the characters that they bring.

So, for me, those various checks are intended to allow for the agency to tell the story of *these* characters - whatever that story may be. Does the party have a handwriting expert, who notices the moment that they receive letter from, or a public notice is posted by, an imposter? For the party contain someone as paranoid about doppelgangers as most oldschool players are about water? Then I think that should be reflected in game.

Ok, but if the level of information the characters have doesn't matter, then the characters/players actually have no agency anyway, because the person running the game is going to make it flow a certain way regardless. It also seems like you are talking about an entirely different scale of information. To be honest, your entire reply doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.

I am playing a character in your game. I have crossed the border into a new nation. What skill is it that is going to now make me aware that the entire nation has been taken over by dopplegangers? How would that even be reasonable? Does someone tell me that has happened and I have an infallible lie detector skill? If I encounter one, I might have some knowledge of dopplegangers to allow me to identify one, or some sort of skill to know that "something isn't right". I can see the handwriting expert example in getting started on learning there is at least forgery involved, but how would that at all translate into "the entire nation is taken over by dopplegangers" all at once?

To be honest, your reply seems to be more about how someone running the game would give info in the adventure preamble than anything having to do with anything characters learn as the game progresses. "I would like to run a game centered around a nation that gets taken over by dopplegangers." So I'm not sure if it even has much of a point with relation to perception and knowledge skills.


On the main topic of prep and game design goes, I think what would be useful is really going to depend on the main focus of the game. If combat is the main focus, then systems for enemy generation/alteration would be good. You would probably also want advice on environmental hazards or traps and maybe some advice on how to incorporate those into your combat scenarios. A game focused more on mystery solving would probably want to give tools for creating a web/series of clues that would help build/present a good playable mystery. Basically, I think that the tools required will stem from the type of games the system wants to provide framework for. The "wider" the game is, the more tools it could potentially provide to help someone run games using that system. On the other hand, the "wider" the system is, the less likely it is that 2 people using it to run games will be using it the same way and will want/need the same tools to generate content.

I don't think this is something that has an easy answer. Any GM tools would need to be customized to the game system, will be determined by the focus of the game system, and will likely not be used by all GMs due to varied "taste" in content even within the scope of the game. That last bit leaves you open to spending more time on tools than they are worth, because you don't know how many of the people interested in the game will use the tools.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-10, 01:40 PM
Looking at system design ways of reducing prep, I can see several avenues. All with tradeoffs of course.

Worldbuilding Prep-reduction
1. Run in a single, fixed setting. This is the Blades in the Dark choice. Most of the world prep is done for you, taking that almost entirely off the GM's plate. However, now you're locked into a single restrictive setting and the game actively fights you if you try to do anything else.

2. Procedural generation. This works, but my experience is that unless the scope is highly restricted (see #1), you either get absurdity or repetition very fast. I've never seen a set of random generation tables that didn't require as much curation as just building it from scratch. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but I've never seen one.

3. Communal worldbuilding. Works for more narrative games, where the players are in the author stance as much as the character stance. Tradeoff is that a lot of people (myself included) don't like switching stances like that and it can feel very contrived. Requires a high-trust group of likeminded people. Also hard to do anything mysterious or exploration focused, since everyone knows what's everywhere. Best for personal-drama-focused games or ones at a much higher level of abstraction.

Encounter Prep-Reduction
4. Publish lots and lots of relatively generic stat blocks. Have the system allow easy reskinning (that's not a claw, that's a sword! does the same damage, but...). Tradeoff is bloat and expense.

5. Reduce the mechanical intricacy of encounters. A more narrative system that treats combat, talking, etc. as just a simple set of opposed rolls requires lots less encounter prep. At the cost of cutting out the tactical level almost entirely.

6. Have a very flat balance between characters. If you can assume that every party of power level X (whether that's XP, level, or what have you) has roughly the same capabilities as any other party of that level, it's much easier to build encounters and give guidance for building encounters. If, like in 3e D&D, a level 10 party could be all over the map, including off the map in any number of directions, building satisfying encounters requires a whole lot more manual intervention. Of course this irritates those who like to optimize for combat numbers, because having flat balance means your return on such optimization is poor.

7. Throw out PC/NPC transparency. A contentious one, but if building an NPC is as easy as selecting the appropriate features out of a list, prep for custom NPCs is dramatically reduced compared to having to build them like a character, including lots of things that won't matter for that NPC. Of course if making a PC is simple and quick, the difference is small. But compare building a fully-functioning high-level character in 3e D&D to building the same character in AD&D 2e. Way fewer hoops to jump through.

As with everything, there are tradeoffs to all of these. #1, for instance, is completely unacceptable to me. I need freedom to build my own world--that's where lots of my fun comes from. So a system designer has to balance where they put in supports for reduced prep and where they rely on GMs. Everyone's going to end up in a different place on this highly-multi-dimensional solution space. Let freedom reign IMO.

Quertus
2021-01-10, 03:17 PM
Ok, but if the level of information the characters have doesn't matter, then the characters/players actually have no agency anyway, because the person running the game is going to make it flow a certain way regardless. It also seems like you are talking about an entirely different scale of information. To be honest, your entire reply doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.

I am playing a character in your game. I have crossed the border into a new nation. What skill is it that is going to now make me aware that the entire nation has been taken over by dopplegangers?

Haven't read your full reply, but the idea was that the hierarchy of *the nation your characters are in* slowly gets taken over by doppelgangers (or not) during the course of the campaign.

Maybe the PCs notice when someone they know gets replaced, maybe they don't.

The players have the full Agency to build characters who can interact with that scenario at any level, from "notice immediately" to "remain clueless throughout the the entire campaign". The campaign will (or could) play out very differently depending on what characters the players choose to bring.

EDIT: which is to say, kinda the opposite of "the person running the game is going to make it flow a certain way regardless.".

Tanarii
2021-01-10, 03:22 PM
IME, all it takes is one player remembering one established fact that you've just contradicted with "spontaneous world-building" to ruin a game.
Why? It's all just backdrop. Stuff not germane to the adventure directly. Albeit stuff that can easily side track, distract, or entertain, and result in the PCs going off on a totally different adventure.

If it's germane to a (possible) adventure, that's adventure planning, not world building.


A&B) I find it interesting that we can play the same system and have very different experiences as far as what takes prep effort. I guess I don't focus so hard on combat. I just had a session with one combat--a group of 5 level 4s vs a CR 7 draegloth.Ya, ad-hoc for a solo or all-one-type enemy, without a complex battle field, is the easiest to do. For me, those are the random encounters though, so (at the minimum) I took prep time to put them on an encounter table.

But it's important to remember non-combat =/= not an encounter. And non-combat encounters have their own prep-load, in order to make them an actual challenge.


I'd say I spent more time on knowing exactly what both the villain's plans were and who the characters are and how they fit into the world, so that when they decided to get their fortunes told (not part of the plan) I could drop in subtle hints about things without either giving it all away or being inconsistent. I spent an hour or so this week writing up a pair of in-universe things between sessions--one was a bit of a conversation from the cat who hides inside one character's shadow and talks to him (long story), the other a part from a sermon from an in-universe organization. Both are linked, but they reveal little bits about the backstories and relationships between a few of the characters. I spent several hours figuring out how another character, who comes from a separate continent, got there and how I want to have his backstory intersect with things. Then I spent a few more hours figuring out other parts of the deeper backstory and capabilities (in-universe, not mechanically) of the main villain and how it intersects with where the party is.This all sounds like adventure planning, not world building. I mean, sure, it's possible to spend more time on adventure planning and ad-hoc the details vs ad-hoc the adventure details and careful plan a few key encounters. But neither is world building, really.

On an unrelated note, my iPad really seems to want to change ad-hoc to ad-how. Wtf is an ad-how anyway? 😂

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-10, 03:31 PM
Why? It's all just backdrop. Stuff not germane to the adventure directly. Albeit stuff that can easily side track, distract, or entertain, and result in the PCs going off on a totally different adventure.

If it's germane to a (possible) adventure, that's adventure planning, not world building.

Ya, ad-hoc for a solo or all-one-type enemy, without a complex battle field, is the easiest to do. For me, those are the random encounters though, so (at the minimum) I took prep time to put them on an encounter table.

But it's important to remember non-combat =/= not an encounter. And non-combat encounters have their own prep-load, in order to make them an actual challenge.

This all sounds like adventure planning, not world building. I mean, sure, it's possible to spend more time on adventure planning and ad-hoc the details vs ad-hoc the adventure details and careful plan a few key encounters. But neither is world building, really.

On an unrelated note, my iPad really seems to want to change ad-hoc to ad-how 😂

I saw no difference between adventure planning and world building. They're part and parcel of the same thing, unless the setting is a potemkin village with no depth. The world and the adventure cover the same ground and inform each other at the deepest levels. I can't build an adventure without knowing its context on the world. And the world is shaped, in part, by the adventures that take place in it.

Tanarii
2021-01-10, 04:29 PM
I saw no difference between adventure planning and world building. They're part and parcel of the same thing, unless the setting is a potemkin village with no depth. The world and the adventure cover the same ground and inform each other at the deepest levels. I can't build an adventure without knowing its context on the world. And the world is shaped, in part, by the adventures that take place in it.
Okay, well in that case I agree it's often useful planning.

OTOH I can see a system where the PCs have little knowledge of the rest of the world having a large amount of procedural generation of new content as they explore removing overhead prep. That's the approach taken by Mutant Zero / Forbidden Lands. And base PtBA. And quite a few osr games. Dungeon crawls or hex crawls.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-10, 04:46 PM
Okay, well in that case I agree it's often useful planning.

OTOH I can see a system where the PCs have little knowledge of the rest of the world having a large amount of procedural generation of new content as they explore removing overhead prep. That's the approach taken by Mutant Zero / Forbidden Lands. And base PtBA. And quite a few osr games. Dungeon crawls or hex crawls.

Sure. As I said, trade-offs. Unacceptable ones for me, as that kind of no-context adventure leaves be cold, both as a player and especially as a GM. I need a world to feel excited about playing or leading games in. I've stopped playing at tables because I didn't like the world. I wouldn't even start at one like that, because it will never meet my desires.

Setting, for me, is one of the most important things. Fitting the characters into the world and having the world react to the characters. And none of that is doable with random tables or generators.

Telok
2021-01-10, 05:38 PM
2. Procedural generation. This works, but my experience is that unless the scope is highly restricted (see #1), you either get absurdity or repetition very fast. I've never seen a set of random generation tables that didn't require as much curation as just building it from scratch. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but I've never seen one

Procedural generation is hard to do right. It's quite possible you've just seen bunches of bad ones. There needs to be a certain level of subject mastery and a good grasp of several forms of probability at the minimum. Then, as always, you're making trade-offs between accuracy, precision, ease of use, etc.

Take random encounters. A 1d20 table is simple and easy. But using it in town, dungeon, and wilderness gets silly. Ok, several tables. Now we're getting tropical jungle monkeys in the arctic. Ok, sub tables. Now there are just as many dragons and giants as pesants and cows. Ok, move to a 3d6 table format. Now we're encountering the night watch during the day. Ok, sub-sub tables. Then... Well now we're no longer simple and easy.

It's like that for any procedural generation. This is why serious procedural generation wasn't really a thing untill computers. So, are you going to pay subject matter experts, a statistician, and some programmers for 6 months just for a geologically and environmentally correct world map generator? No? Well then, 1d6: 1-mountain, 2-desert, 3-ocean, 4-forest, 5-plains, 6-swamp. Have a bad procedural generator.

Jay R
2021-01-10, 06:45 PM
I got to say some pro-preparation people keep talking like there is some special quality threshold that you can't cross without preparation, which I think is untrue and unfair to anyone who has run a good no/low preparation game.

Don't confuse a statement I make about myself as being about anybody else. I'm pretty good at winging it when necessary, and in any game, it often is.

But my best games aren't a disconnected set of encounters. There are lots of connections between events that are not necessarily obvious to the players.

I ran a game in which the party went from level one to level six carrying a set of artifacts they needed to destroy, called the Staves of the Wanderers. The PCs started as servants of seven great heroes, each of which carried a very powerful staff. Over time, the PCs slowly figured out that the Wanderers weren't the seven heroes. Each staff carried the powers of one of the seven wandering stars -- the original planets (the moon, Mercury, Venus, the sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.

This required a lot of pre-planning, starting with placing the unmoving earth at the center of the universe, as in Ptolemaic astronomy. The weather patterns were involved, as were some of the encounters. This is the kind of deeply planned game I like to play, and that I like to run. I could not run it without lots of pre-planning.

I can't run that kind of game without an incredible amount of pre-planning. Fortunately, I really enjoy building it up.

This is not a statement about any other kind of game, or about any other GM



I don't have a particular argument here just putting in an odd idea that might put some perspective on things. My position pretty much remains the same, you should try to make preparing for a session easy and fast for everybody.

Why should I make preparing for a session easy and fast for me, when I really enjoy world building and game planning? You appear to be saying that I should spend less time on what I enjoy. There is no reason for me to do so.

Again, this is a statement about me and my games, and may not apply to other GMs and their games.

And this is the core of my biggest disagreement with you. I won't tell you that there is anything wrong with preparing games your way. But you want to tell me that I should to change my way of preparing for a session.

Cluedrew
2021-01-10, 08:15 PM
Worldbuilding Prep-reduction
1. Run in a single, fixed setting. This is the Blades in the Dark choice. Most of the world prep is done for you, taking that almost entirely off the GM's plate. However, now you're locked into a single restrictive setting and the game actively fights you if you try to do anything else.

2. Procedural generation. This works, but my experience is that unless the scope is highly restricted (see #1), you either get absurdity or repetition very fast. I've never seen a set of random generation tables that didn't require as much curation as just building it from scratch. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but I've never seen one.

3. Communal worldbuilding. Works for more narrative games, where the players are in the author stance as much as the character stance. Tradeoff is that a lot of people (myself included) don't like switching stances like that and it can feel very contrived. Requires a high-trust group of likeminded people. Also hard to do anything mysterious or exploration focused, since everyone knows what's everywhere. Best for personal-drama-focused games or ones at a much higher level of abstraction.

Encounter Prep-Reduction
4. Publish lots and lots of relatively generic stat blocks. Have the system allow easy reskinning (that's not a claw, that's a sword! does the same damage, but...). Tradeoff is bloat and expense.

5. Reduce the mechanical intricacy of encounters. A more narrative system that treats combat, talking, etc. as just a simple set of opposed rolls requires lots less encounter prep. At the cost of cutting out the tactical level almost entirely.

6. Have a very flat balance between characters. If you can assume that every party of power level X (whether that's XP, level, or what have you) has roughly the same capabilities as any other party of that level, it's much easier to build encounters and give guidance for building encounters. If, like in 3e D&D, a level 10 party could be all over the map, including off the map in any number of directions, building satisfying encounters requires a whole lot more manual intervention. Of course this irritates those who like to optimize for combat numbers, because having flat balance means your return on such optimization is poor.

7. Throw out PC/NPC transparency. A contentious one, but if building an NPC is as easy as selecting the appropriate features out of a list, prep for custom NPCs is dramatically reduced compared to having to build them like a character, including lots of things that won't matter for that NPC. Of course if making a PC is simple and quick, the difference is small. But compare building a fully-functioning high-level character in 3e D&D to building the same character in AD&D 2e. Way fewer hoops to jump through.1. Prebuilt Setting: Did you mean to say "restricted to one setting"? What makes a setting more or less restrictive? Are you sure that a prebuilt setting is inherently more restrictive than - since we are not talking about a prepared one - a not quite as prebuilt setting?

2. Random Generation: I think it works best as prompts, ideas to get you going. Or you could use it with some of the blank areas in a prebuild setting. There are random tables to help you generate streets in Doskvol because it is a whole city and many-many details are left out.

3. Community World-Building: Yes exactly. Although this is one I am going to point out you are really focusing on the cons. For instance I step between the role-playing and world-building modes so easily I have done it just because the GM realized they forgot to fill in a detail so I just do it. It also has some advantages, helps get things people want into the setting and gives people a sense of ownership.

4. Generic Stats: I think these work better if your fighting mostly non-monster enemies. Different types of people will prefer different weapons but they don't have fundamentally different sizes and shapes. You can still have mechanical variation but it is less and they can approach combat different ways.

5. Simple Encounters: To my end of my days I don't think I will understand why people suddenly want to switch to playing a half-baked war game half way through a role-playing game but I understand that they do and for those yes this is a loss. But

6. Balanced System: I flat out assumed people were aiming for good system balance already so I don't see why not. Some people are here for challenge but some people just want to be able to pick what represents there characters and expression seems much more core to this genre.

7. PC/NPC Divide: I think systems that have different rules for the two are really taking this to an extreme. The main thing you would need to change is the order. PCs are formed over time (NPCs are updated over it to) but a new NPC should be created over relevance, most relevant information to least.


Don't confuse a statement I make about myself as being about anybody else. I'm pretty good at winging it when necessary, and in any game, it often is.I had forgotten your statement when I posted that message so I wasn't talking about you certainly.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-10, 08:35 PM
1. Prebuilt Setting: Did you mean to say "restricted to one setting"? What makes a setting more or less restrictive? Are you sure that a prebuilt setting is inherently more restrictive than - since we are not talking about a prepared one - a not quite as prebuilt setting?

2. Random Generation: I think it works best as prompts, ideas to get you going. Or you could use it with some of the blank areas in a prebuild setting. There are random tables to help you generate streets in Doskvol because it is a whole city and many-many details are left out.

3. Community World-Building: Yes exactly. Although this is one I am going to point out you are really focusing on the cons. For instance I step between the role-playing and world-building modes so easily I have done it just because the GM realized they forgot to fill in a detail so I just do it. It also has some advantages, helps get things people want into the setting and gives people a sense of ownership.

4. Generic Stats: I think these work better if your fighting mostly non-monster enemies. Different types of people will prefer different weapons but they don't have fundamentally different sizes and shapes. You can still have mechanical variation but it is less and they can approach combat different ways.

5. Simple Encounters: To my end of my days I don't think I will understand why people suddenly want to switch to playing a half-baked war game half way through a role-playing game but I understand that they do and for those yes this is a loss. But

6. Balanced System: I flat out assumed people were aiming for good system balance already so I don't see why not. Some people are here for challenge but some people just want to be able to pick what represents there characters and expression seems much more core to this genre.

7. PC/NPC Divide: I think systems that have different rules for the two are really taking this to an extreme. The main thing you would need to change is the order. PCs are formed over time (NPCs are updated over it to) but a new NPC should be created over relevance, most relevant information to least.


1. Sort of. What I meant was a system that is entirely built around a single, clearly-identified setting. And at that, a very narrow one. Blades in the Dark is literally one city (and maybe its surroundings). Anything outside is null. There's an invisible wall--if you want to set your game outside of Doskvol, the system not only doesn't help you but actively fights you. You get lots of prep-reduction from it, but at (to me) a gigantic cost. Of course this is a spectrum--even using a pre-written setting gains you something. But IMX, most pre-written settings that are wide enough to actually have diversity don't provide much of the information that you'd need to really cut down on prep. They have lots of high-level information but not enough of the kingdom or smaller level information. And what they have is so vague and useless (just due to page counts if nothing else) as to restrict (because you can't change any of the high-level invariants and still get benefit from a fixed setting) but not help (because you have to make up the internal stuff yourself).

2. Yes, but again. Doing random generation right is hard, and the curation requires as much or more effort (again, IMX) than just making it up straight. Or is a nightmare to use (nested tables suck, badly). I basically only use random generation for things that don't matter (exact composition of a treasure hoard), and even then I'll curate some of the items.

3. This is one that people either like or hate. I personally dislike it when done as a matter of system design (when the system expects everyone to sit down and come up with a setting). For one thing, it basically prevents setting reuse between groups, producing throw-away settings. Maybe if you're always playing with the same people for years on end it might be good. But I've had 12-14 different parties with very little player overlap have games set in my setting. That provides a lot of "communal worldbuilding" richness without the overhead of switching stances constantly. The players build the world by what they want and what characters they build. I don't oppose having players suggest worldbuilding elements (especially in backstory). But those are ornaments on an existing tree, filling out the blank spaces. And their biggest contributions happen during play, through their characters' actions. I've had characters kill demigods, who stayed dead. I've had characters found international organizations that shaped the course of history from then on. Heck, I had a party cause a cataclysm that reshaped the entire continent and required a 200 year timeskip to stabilize things, including killing off all the gods.

4. Yes. It depends on the game's focus. I don't mind this one, personally. It's what I do generally, especially for fiends (as my setting treats them very differently under the hood). I find a stat block that looks about right and change the names. Saves oodles of prep time. Only rarely do I actually build one from scratch, and now it's only because I'm using online tools that require full stat blocks instead of just doing it in my head like I did when we were in-person.

5. There's a balance to be struck. And much role-play happens during combat. I agree that treating it like a tactical miniatures game with playing-piece characters is annoying. So don't do that--that's separate from the mechanical layer. You can have role-play and tactical combat, as long as you treat your characters like actual people instead of optimized chess pieces.

6. The importance isn't balance, per se. It's flat balance. Where the optimization floor and ceiling are basically the same. I don't mind this (actually preferring it a bit), but some people hate it. And it does impose worldbuilding complications if you want to express a wide variety of character types. Not insuperable ones, but pressures none the less.

7. 3e requires you to actually build the stat block from the ground up, and everything relies on everything else. Combine that with a classic example of doing #6 badly, and you get a preparation nightmare. 5e, on the other hand, allows you to cherry pick abilities, and the math is flat enough that unless you are pushing the edge of combat difficulty, it doesn't really matter if you're off a bit. I prefer to treat stat blocks as a limited view into a character. They express only the things that matter for their role in the narrative. They're entirely game level. And I also prefer simpler stat blocks than even the basic 5e ones, especially for spellcasters. I'd much prefer 4e-style "2-3 separate powers" ones to a big list of spells and spell slots (or worse, power pools). Even if in-universe they're using the same powers as the PCs are, they're just written down differently to make the DM's life easier.

ImNotTrevor
2021-01-10, 09:04 PM
Gonna arise from my slumber like a vengeful god and slide riiiiight on into here.

99% of what makes a game easy to prep for is having good tools to assist the GM in running a low-no prep game.

To call upon a chef analogy from page 1,
We don't necessarily want TV dinners.
But if the chef has to kill all the chickens and start a fire and grow the wheat and bake the bread for everyone to have a chicken sandwich, well...
It will either be the best or worst chicken sandwich you've ever had.

If the chef has a selection of artisinal breads already baked and some of the people at the table help cut bread and put cutlets on we can all eat quicker and hell, we might make a better product than one chef alone in a kitchen can prepare.

And if we don't, at least we all got to do something together and it's a less daunting task to try again.


All anyone on the low-prep side really wants is some proper support. D&D is SO unwilling to tell DMs how best to do their thing that they pretty much just throw options at you and then retreat to a safe distance while crying "but only if you want to" as if we'll all lash out in anger.
Come to think of it, I've met a lot of D&D players here and in forums...
They probably would be at WotC's doors with pitchforks in hand if they ever had the gall to say "here's what DMing should ideally look like" even in broad terms.

Low-no prep is not about making none of the preparation MATTER. That makes for a crappy system.
Making the system so gutted and simplified that it can't really do anything flavorful ALSO makes for a crappy system.

But a system with straightforward tools imbued with flexibility and, above all else, deeply ingrained into the flavor of the system....

That's gold, right there.

It means I can lay things out in broad terms and fill in when I get there during the session, without feeling like I've been put on the spot any time a player does something unexpected. If a system gives me the flexibility to roll with the punches without having to preprogram every maneuver I can think of ahead of time, I'll have a lot more fun and, in my experience, so will my players. Because a GM who hasn't spent 4 hours prepping the session is a lot less attached to their carefully crafted storyline, and when they know they can roll with the players, you become less of a Rock Em Sock Em Robot and more of a Muhammed Ali.

Pelle
2021-01-11, 06:08 AM
I find it more useful to think about what you specificially need to prep for the type of game you run, so you can focus on that and not waste time on things peripheral to the experience.

Say you want to run a heist game, where the main draw is the fun of planning and execution. You can reduce what you need to prep for this down to for example just the following, courtesy of the Alexandrian:
- Blueprints
- Defensive measures
- Event schedule
- Gotchas (optional)

So intstead of having the lofty design goal of not requiring any prep, be specific about what the GM should prep and provide support for that.

ImNotTrevor
2021-01-11, 11:01 AM
I find it more useful to think about what you specificially need to prep for the type of game you run, so you can focus on that and not waste time on things peripheral to the experience.

Say you want to run a heist game, where the main draw is the fun of planning and execution. You can reduce what you need to prep for this down to for example just the following, courtesy of the Alexandrian:
- Blueprints
- Defensive measures
- Event schedule
- Gotchas (optional)

So intstead of having the lofty design goal of not requiring any prep, be specific about what the GM should prep and provide support for that.

Blades In The Dark is a great example of a game that gives extensive and strong tools for exactly this.

Including drawing from common elements of Heist stories, such as Flashbacks, to make it feel like a heist story. Basically, even if the PLAYERS aren't expert planners, they still get to have a character who is, because they can spend a resource to basically say "I was prepared for this."

kyoryu
2021-01-11, 11:58 AM
Oh, my comments are *absolutely* about system design: don't build a kitchen that cannot house an oven. Understand the types of food that everyone wants to make / eat before you go attempting to design an "optimized" kitchen.

The worst thing, IMO & IME, is when the rules actively get in the way.

Rules will always enable some gameplay modes at the expense of others. That always happens. For instance, I'd argue that 3e makes it harder to do improv games (not impossible!) by virtue of the complexity of its stat blocks.

Not every game is designed for your preferred play style, and that's okay. Not every game is designed for my preferred play styles either, and that's also okay. The beauty is that there are games out there for everyone, and you can just choose not to play games that don't work for you.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-11, 01:26 PM
Rules will always enable some gameplay modes at the expense of others. That always happens. For instance, I'd argue that 3e makes it harder to do improv games (not impossible!) by virtue of the complexity of its stat blocks.

Not every game is designed for your preferred play style, and that's okay. Not every game is designed for my preferred play styles either, and that's also okay. The beauty is that there are games out there for everyone, and you can just choose not to play games that don't work for you.

I agree. Most of this is a matter of taste and preference. But systems should, IMO, make it clear what styles of play they are designed for, and then focus on doing those styles well. People are free to use the system for unsupported styles, but at their own risk and effort.

Pelle
2021-01-12, 04:31 AM
Blades In The Dark is a great example of a game that gives extensive and strong tools for exactly this.

No, not at all, Blades in the Dark is designed specifically to not have the players plan. Lots of players find the planning boring, so that's a good design choice and it's well executed. BitD is not designed for people who loves to do the actual planning though, which was what I was using as an example. However, I think John Harper was quite conscious about what should be prepped or not for his game, so BitD is a good example for this thread.

Cluedrew
2021-01-12, 09:02 AM
1. Sort of. What I meant was a system that is entirely built around a single, clearly-identified setting. And at that, a very narrow one. Blades in the Dark is literally one city (and maybe its surroundings). Anything outside is null. There's an invisible wall--if you want to set your game outside of Doskvol, the system not only doesn't help you but actively fights you. You get lots of prep-reduction from it, but at (to me) a gigantic cost. Of course this is a spectrum--even using a pre-written setting gains you something. But IMX, most pre-written settings that are wide enough to actually have diversity don't provide much of the information that you'd need to really cut down on prep. They have lots of high-level information but not enough of the kingdom or smaller level information. And what they have is so vague and useless (just due to page counts if nothing else) as to restrict (because you can't change any of the high-level invariants and still get benefit from a fixed setting) but not help (because you have to make up the internal stuff yourself).I am going to focus on this one because I would like to go a bit more in depth and this seems like a good one to do so. Some of the other ones we are already starting to reiterate what games they would be a good or bad fit for and maybe there isn't much else to say about them.

OK so first off a pedantic note: the walls around Doskvol are not invisible, they are made out of lightning and they keep the ghosts out. But it is mentioned that is the purpose of the ghosts beyond the wall was to keep people from just running away from there problems? Lets say there was a functioning country side and they hadn't created in city greenhouses to feed everybody. So you go out into some little farm town. You are a bunch of criminals, being in a less populated area gives you less people to rob, less crowds to blend into and less low-lifes to recruit (a thing in this game). OK so what about going to another big city? There is a map of the Shattered Islands with rail lines and major cities. Say you set the campaign in South Port. What does that change? If it changes nothing then why do it? If it changes something that will have ripples and so there are going to effect something else.

So basically I think that the idea of detailing one city is not a bad idea. The amount of detail is actually something I was going to say more about but this is taking longer than I expected and I have go.

Tanarii
2021-01-12, 09:41 AM
No, not at all, Blades in the Dark is designed specifically to not have the players plan. Lots of players find the planning boring, so that's a good design choice and it's well executed. BitD is not designed for people who loves to do the actual planning though, which was what I was using as an example. However, I think John Harper was quite conscious about what should be prepped or not for his game, so BitD is a good example for this thread.
Blades in the Dark reads like the least Heist Game I could imagine. It's all about the execution, and not about the research and planning at all. It's like watching Oceans Eleven or Italian Job ending, then going back and starting again at the beginning (and telling a story) to see all the supposed planning that happened to get you there.

The sample base break in made me roll my eyes reading it, but only because I'm so used to TTRPG games where the DM runs the environment and the world, and PCs run their characters. Even PtbA doesn't go to this level of environment/world control by the players. It's one of the most "narrative" mechanics I've ever read.

kyoryu
2021-01-12, 09:43 AM
So basically I think that the idea of detailing one city is not a bad idea. The amount of detail is actually something I was going to say more about but this is taking longer than I expected and I have go.

Practically speaking, for a given situation (published book, GM doing their own prep, whatever), the maximum amount of prep is fairly constant and restrained by time.

So the choice is really "do I want one city that's super well detailed with a bunch of hooks and factions and NPCs and stuff, or do I want a bunch of cities with a bare minimum of detail?"

Limiting the scope of the game isn't a bad idea. Even in games that will grow in scope, starting with a smaller scope is a good idea.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-12, 10:55 AM
I am going to focus on this one because I would like to go a bit more in depth and this seems like a good one to do so. Some of the other ones we are already starting to reiterate what games they would be a good or bad fit for and maybe there isn't much else to say about them.

OK so first off a pedantic note: the walls around Doskvol are not invisible, they are made out of lightning and they keep the ghosts out. But it is mentioned that is the purpose of the ghosts beyond the wall was to keep people from just running away from there problems? Lets say there was a functioning country side and they hadn't created in city greenhouses to feed everybody. So you go out into some little farm town. You are a bunch of criminals, being in a less populated area gives you less people to rob, less crowds to blend into and less low-lifes to recruit (a thing in this game). OK so what about going to another big city? There is a map of the Shattered Islands with rail lines and major cities. Say you set the campaign in South Port. What does that change? If it changes nothing then why do it? If it changes something that will have ripples and so there are going to effect something else.

So basically I think that the idea of detailing one city is not a bad idea. The amount of detail is actually something I was going to say more about but this is taking longer than I expected and I have go.


Practically speaking, for a given situation (published book, GM doing their own prep, whatever), the maximum amount of prep is fairly constant and restrained by time.

So the choice is really "do I want one city that's super well detailed with a bunch of hooks and factions and NPCs and stuff, or do I want a bunch of cities with a bare minimum of detail?"

Limiting the scope of the game isn't a bad idea. Even in games that will grow in scope, starting with a smaller scope is a good idea.

I agree, roughly, with both of these. It's not a bad idea, just one I dislike for personal reasons. And the decision to tie your game so strongly to that one setting (and a micro-setting with walls) means that it's not much use to me, because a large chunk of my personal fun comes from making new things and seeing what the players do with them. And watching the setting as a whole evolve based on their actions and the world's counter-reactions. And when all the major decisions are made for me, that fun is sharply limited.

Having too much detail for me means that the holes are filled in. That the unanswered questions (on which hang adventures) are answered. And that, to me, means the setting is useless (or of less use). Because my primary aesthetic is exploration, seeing what is beyond that next hill (metaphorically or literally).

I tend to build iteratively and recursively. I have a broad-brush understanding of what is most places. But only when the players are moving toward that area do I build the detail, and then only in proportion to how much they get involved. I spend a lot of time getting the metaphysics down cold and understanding the underlying themes and aesthetics. And then time building the ideas behind the various nations, with more focus where the games start and spend a lot of their time. And as people explore, things they don't change but do see get set in stone for the next explorers. So each party gets the benefit of the planning that came before, but still has the freedom to change things by their actions.

kyoryu
2021-01-12, 10:58 AM
I agree, roughly, with both of these. It's not a bad idea, just one I dislike for personal reasons.

Sure, generally decisions or even designs aren't good or bad without context. They're good or bad at trying to achieve a particular set of goals.

(The exception is designs that get in their own way, and have parts that strongly support a thing, while other parts actively fight against it)

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-12, 11:41 AM
Sure, generally decisions or even designs aren't good or bad without context. They're good or bad at trying to achieve a particular set of goals.

(The exception is designs that get in their own way, and have parts that strongly support a thing, while other parts actively fight against it)

Agreed. And that's what I've been maintaining this whole time. All the "fixes" I can see (or that have been presented) for the goal of reducing prep come with tradeoffs (as tradeoffs are inevitable just about everywhere). And those tradeoffs may make them less suited to certain people's styles. That is, reducing prep in the abstract is not a context-free "good thing". It's one style, which doesn't fit everyone. So we should understand the tradeoffs we're making in game design and make sure to clearly label what styles we're supporting and do those.

I could drop my prep to nearly zero by running a pre-made module by-the-book. But I wouldn't have fun doing so. Same with most of the other suggestions. "Prep" is not a dirty word. I'd say I get as much pleasure or more out of prep as I do out of running the sessions themselves, but the prep without the sessions would lose inspiration. Both are needed (so just writing a book doesn't work for me, personally). On the other hand, needless prep (ie 3e-style build-monsters-as-PCs-with-all-the-pieces prep or highly-tactical combat prep) isn't all that much fun. So there's a balance, for me. I don't want a system that makes me do a lot of boilerplate busywork. That, after all, is what I have the system and the printed books for. And I'm happy to use that pre-generated content when it can be neatly fit into a new context or reskinned without issue. It's when that gets opinionated and highly context-dependent that it becomes useless to me. Which is why I don't buy modules or setting books--they're too heavily context dependent to get much out of them without tons of work that I'd rather do on my own foundation.

I have a long-standing pet peeve when people take matters of taste and promote them as objective values. This is one of those cases--low prep =/= good (inherently). It also isn't bad inherently. Just one choice among many, with its own knock-on consequences.

Quertus
2021-01-12, 02:09 PM
Low-no prep is not about making none of the preparation MATTER. That makes for a crappy system.
Making the system so gutted and simplified that it can't really do anything flavorful ALSO makes for a crappy system.

Because a GM who hasn't spent 4 hours prepping the session is a lot less attached to their carefully crafted storyline, and when they know they can roll with the players,

The post that these quotes came from was absolutely amazing. Had it actually advocated specific actions, I believe that numerous readers would have been convinced. You rolled amazingly on your Diplomacy roll there!

Even I, contrarian that I am, don't so much disagree with the quoted bits, as think that they deserve more analysis. The second one in particular, which sounds like it ought to shield against railroading… I suspect may not be the *best* tool for that job, but is one that I had never considered.


Rules will always enable some gameplay modes at the expense of others. That always happens. For instance, I'd argue that 3e makes it harder to do improv games (not impossible!) by virtue of the complexity of its stat blocks.

Not every game is designed for your preferred play style, and that's okay. Not every game is designed for my preferred play styles either, and that's also okay. The beauty is that there are games out there for everyone, and you can just choose not to play games that don't work for you.

That's not the angle I was evaluating.

So, big in this thread right now is the concept of a heist.

D&D - say, 3e - makes most heists pretty simple: Teleport in, grab stuff, Teleport out. There's no real *point* to playing through a D&D heist, for the most part - no real "game" there.

But how could we make running a heist *difficult*? How could we make a system poorly designed for heists?

Well, it depends. We could go the D&D route of making them trivial. We could go the BitD route of removing planning - the whole *point*, the whole *game* of the heist for some. But let's not do that.

Instead, let's imagine a system where *other* scenes have no "game".

Suppose we start with a system with "guaranteed failure" stealth rules, like 2e D&D, so that every open relying on stealth is guaranteed to fail at some point, and the question isn't "whether", but "when". Well, we haven't really ruined the heist concept yet, just made it very tense, with almost no chance of a clean getaway.

But what if our movement / vehicle rules didn't have concepts of successfully escaping a chase scene? In 2e, you could only stealth by hiding in shadows when not actively observed - good luck with that during a chase scene. And, if they had the same movent rate, you couldn't lose them that way, either. So 2e rules are kinda a pain there.

But can we do worse? Can we envision something that makes a "normal" game really easy to prep, but which makes a heist game in the system somehow bad / difficult?

Personally, I would say "yes, trivially", but I'm not sure if everyone will follow my example: 3e social skills.

In 3e, you don't do much make and map NPC personalities and motives, you just spam social skills at set DCs. This lack of personality makes it really easy to generate "Fighter 2, AC 12, 15 HP", but really hard to know if this particular guard might be susceptible to a bribe, or what that bribe should look like. Take most any D&D module, and imagine running it as a heist, with the PCs trying to steal something from each city / adventure site. Imagine everything that is missing from what Ocean's Eleven would want to interact with.

Or imagine that I've used "simplified monster creation" to make my "bruiser gargoyle" that deals 2d20 damage… and then one of the PCs decides to Polymorph into one. OK, how much of that damage was Strength? How much can they lift and still fly? They're made of stone - was their flight magical? At that point, you may as well ask the player, "what would you like the answer to be?", because every answer will be completely arbitrary.

Understanding the use cases for the system (someone might want to pull a heist, or Polymorph into a creature) is what I'm talking about, not "improv" (which, I agree, 3e makes quite difficult).

ImNotTrevor
2021-01-12, 06:32 PM
The post that these quotes came from was absolutely amazing. Had it actually advocated specific actions, I believe that numerous readers would have been convinced. You rolled amazingly on your Diplomacy roll there!

Even I, contrarian that I am, don't so much disagree with the quoted bits, as think that they deserve more analysis. The second one in particular, which sounds like it ought to shield against railroading… I suspect may not be the *best* tool for that job, but is one that I had never considered.


Giving super specifics is difficult. What works for one system may not work for another.

Apocalypse World does well in providing broad (but not overly so) categories for what may happen on a failed roll, a wide variety of "threats" and different ways that they may behave, in ways that aren't ridiculous to access during play. (Someone is going out to the Burn Flats? That's a Maze threat, put my eyes on my Threats sheet, looking at Mazes)

My prep in AW focuses on having broad-view ideas of what happens if the PCs don't stop a particular threat from developing. Within the session, I show what that looks like and with what they do, roll with those punches. And it doesn't really matter if they walk into the local warlord's chamber and blow his brains out in session 1. Power vacuums cause problems, and he wasn't the only problem to begin with. So my campaign is unaffected.

But a lot of this works because Apocalypse World isn't trying to emulate a Hero's Journey. It wants to express drama in a post-apocalyptic *community.*

To point to what someone else said, part of what helps is having a clear, narrow focus for what the game wants to be. D&D is neither narrow nor focused, so it ends up needing to be very thoroughly prepped and a significant number of hours are required to get it ready to run.

I considered adding a "what would I add for D&D" but... D&D is extremely resistant to reducing its prep time. D&D has chosen to go hyper-detailed, so in order to reduce prep time you'd have to reduce detail. Which would mean redesigning d&d.

I'd rather not, so I won't.

For an idea of what a D&D-like game with low prep might look like, see Dungeon World or, for a better option, Fellowship. (Not associated with LotR, shockingly.)

---

To expand on point 2, Apoc. World makes it really easy to not get hella attached to your threats because... there isn't just ONE.

There is no "BBEG" in Apocalypse World. There's a variety of small fires in a fireworks warehouse and the PCs are a bunch of very tired workers with squirt guns. (And maybe some torches)

Can you do an adventure game like that? Sure. I see no reason why you can't have a variety of villains preparing their world-domination plans and as the PCs single them out they are at various levels of Finished With Their Plan, and maybe they get to one or more just a little too late.

You could take from City of Mist and their Iceburg setup for Mysteries, but the mystery being unravelled is the identity/plan of the BBEG and how to stop them/it.

So long as the system was built around it, any one of these could be endlessly helpful in reducing the session-to-session prep time of a system.

Cluedrew
2021-01-12, 08:25 PM
Blades in the Dark reads like the least Heist Game I could imagine. It's all about the execution, and not about the research and planning at all. It's like watching Oceans Eleven or Italian Job ending, then going back and starting again at the beginning (and telling a story) to see all the supposed planning that happened to get you there.That actually happens in Ocean's Eleven*, I can't speak to the Italian Job but the Ocean's movies make amble use of dramatic irony where the characters know things the viewers doesn't and they are revealed by going back when - or sometimes well after - that aspect of the plan has become relevant.

I wouldn't say one is better or worse, I wouldn't even say I like one more than the other as I have only played the strictly forward version.


I could drop my prep to nearly zero by running a pre-made module by-the-book. But I wouldn't have fun doing so.Why are you in this thread? This is a serious question because I'm suddenly not sure how to approach this. I can continue to ask questions but if the answer is a blanket "I don't like it." that's not a useful conversation.

The questions I were going to ask are things like: How does Doskvol's setting get in the way of exploring physics or effects of character's actions? What are the parts of the setting you are less interested in creating?

On Objectively Better: I did say not having to do work for your hobby is objectively better, but I did call out I am not talking about the parts people are doing because its fun for them. I forget if I explicitly said anything about (traditionally) high-preparation game styles being as good as low-preparation game styles but that is true. I still think it would be cool if I could build tools so that high was not quite as high.

For me its tiring when people respond with my ideas for improvements with talk like I'm just too lazy to be taken seriously (maybe it was accidental, I forget the details I try to tune it out). But the thing is: I have three other hobbies that consume massive amounts of time and energy and various full time responsibilities. My world building has been described with, "You know you haven't really world-built until you have gotten into protein folding." I am in fact aware of the concept of putting in work. Yet apparently to some people feel I don't meet some special dedication threshold because I think it would be nice if it was easier and hence should be bared from the office of GM.I decided to leave it in just so I can get this off my chest, even though I think the people who it would be directed at have all left the thread. Also depending how you count this is part of one of those three hobbies so it would be only two other hobbies.

KaussH
2021-01-12, 09:22 PM
Part of the issue is also, what kind of workload.

I run a dnd game, I have the world building. Npcs, plot hooks,combat. Ect.

I run cuthulu and it's more, background secrets for the players to find, props, synthesizer sound effects, ect..


I do find, long term at least, reusable worlds seems to help. I find if I use my "first age" setting for dnd for more than one group, I can just adjust as opposed to build.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-12, 10:39 PM
Why are you in this thread? This is a serious question because I'm suddenly not sure how to approach this. I can continue to ask questions but if the answer is a blanket "I don't like it." that's not a useful conversation.

The questions I were going to ask are things like: How does Doskvol's setting get in the way of exploring physics or effects of character's actions? What are the parts of the setting you are less interested in creating?

On Objectively Better: I did say not having to do work for your hobby is objectively better, but I did call out I am not talking about the parts people are doing because its fun for them. I forget if I explicitly said anything about (traditionally) high-preparation game styles being as good as low-preparation game styles but that is true. I still think it would be cool if I could build tools so that high was not quite as high.

For me its tiring when people respond with my ideas for improvements with talk like I'm just too lazy to be taken seriously (maybe it was accidental, I forget the details I try to tune it out). But the thing is: I have three other hobbies that consume massive amounts of time and energy and various full time responsibilities. My world building has been described with, "You know you haven't really world-built until you have gotten into protein folding." I am in fact aware of the concept of putting in work. Yet apparently to some people feel I don't meet some special dedication threshold because I think it would be nice if it was easier and hence should be bared from the office of GM.I decided to leave it in just so I can get this off my chest, even though I think the people who it would be directed at have all left the thread. Also depending how you count this is part of one of those three hobbies so it would be only two other hobbies.

First off, an apology. I can frequently be categorical in my speech and writing on these forums. It's a bad habit of mine. Along with long-windedness. When I say "You can't create a vibrant, living world without prep", I did mean that. But the amount of prep needed is not necessarily BIG NUMBER like I implied, and most people can get away with a lot less prep than I put in. And that's great.

As to my purpose:
I'm contesting the premise, or at least the one that seems to be implied. Which is that prep is an evil, even a necessary evil. That everyone would be better off if we globally reduced the amount of prep that DMs/GMs did, and that zero (or near-zero) is the ideal.

Not everyone believes that lowering prep is an inherently good thing. You may like it, or wish it, and are free to find ways to do so. But doing so at a system level usually means that those of us who like prep or who like things that require prep have to fight the system to do so. And that kinda sucks, fighting the system like that.

I don't think that people who don't like prep are lazy. I think that they have different priorities than I do. Which is fine, as long as their priorities and my priorities aren't in conflict. If they are, I'll take mine...because well....I prefer mine (rather obviously).

So I guess what I'm saying is that if you're (generic you) so focused on "reducing prep", you're missing most of the variables that matter. There are tons of ways to reduce prep regardless of the system, if that's all you care about. But each and every one of them, like anything else in this life, comes with compromises and trade-offs. No game design free lunches. Some of those proposals have trade-offs I can handle or that don't annoy me (not having to make individual stat blocks for every creature, for instance, is worth the "fuzziness" that results at the world level when every X is basically identical to every other X, IMO). For you, other trade-offs that I can't handle may work. Which is fine.

The principle is one of Conservation of Annoyance. Every system has approximately the same amount of total annoyance baked in. Not just game systems--this principle was developed for physics models originally. You can't really change that total annoyance. All you can do is shove it around, including places that don't matter for the task you're using it for. Good systems make it very clear where they've put the annoyance (so if you want to do something there, pick a different system). By reducing prep-related annoyance, all you're doing is shoving that annoyance somewhere else. Maybe you don't care about that new form of annoyance, so it's a win. But others do. So by doing so you've made them (ie me) less interested.

If you give me someone else's setting, with all the meaningful details filled in, I get bored. I need the freedom to create my own universe from the Big Bang Equivalent up. To set the metaphysics with a free hand. To throw out all the written lore and find new (or not so new) explanations for things. To play in the deep back-history as well as the ongoing adventures. To see the thing develop based on the interactions of the players and the emergent story. To learn new things about the world and watch it grow, things I'd never expected. These are intrinsic parts of my fun. Having those fixed in place ruins it entirely for me as a creator. I can play in someone else's setting, if the companionship is genial. But then it's entirely playing for the social aspect--it doesn't engage a large chunk of my soul. It becomes mechanical, rather than engrossing.

So if you hand me a system that has a fixed setting, or that demands that you use mostly random (even curated-random) methods for generating content, I'll say thanks but no thanks. You've lost me as a customer. It's one reason I like D&D, despite its flaws. It accepts that DMs can make their own worlds, not just their own adventures in a fixed world. If I want to throw out the standard planes or other lore, I'm free to do so (at the cost of more prep, but that's something I'm glad to do). Doing so in, say, WoD means throwing out almost everything. Because it's all so tightly coupled. Same, from what I understand, of Blades in the Dark. Take it out of Doskvol and you lose a good chunk of the system's support structure, leaving you scrambling to basically reconstruct the same thing with the names changed.

As to Doskvol in particular, it's one city. No matter how big, it's fundamentally one city with fixed metaphysics and philosophy. It's geared around one particular style of play (cinematic heists). Everything about it, from the ground up, is designed to support that. And heists leave me cold. I don't watch the movies, I don't care about the whole genre, and playing in a heist-genre game is a no for me. Personal taste is paramount. Same reason I don't like WoD--existential angst isn't high on my list of things I want to deal with.


And I can't do things like
* What if (a variation on) a 12th-century alchemist's understanding of physical laws were actually true, and what if we weave magic into everything to make it come out right? This is one of the underpinnings of my setting.

* How can I make the counter-intuitive and "unrealistic" and "gamefied" mechanics of 5e D&D make sense in a world that doesn't actually live by the rule-book (so no 4th-wall-breakage/in-universe metagaming)? Another major goal of my setting.

* What's over that hill? Let's find out.<---this one's a big one for me. I live for the moment when players look at the world map and go "oh, that's cool, let's go there!" when "there" is somewhere I don't have anything more than a vague idea for." Being forced to map out areas as players approach, especially with particular needs in mind. Much of my setting contains things I wouldn't have thought of on my own. Things that were prompted by a throw-away remark someone made, which then got me thinking.

I started my rebuilt setting thinking I'd follow the advice to "start small". I built a single village and its surroundings. And immediately the players said "What's over there?" pointing outside the walls I'd built. They wanted to explore, to see new things. To encounter new life and new civilizations. To boldy go...oh wait, wrong genre. But we were hooked. And I gave up the style I had thought I was going to play (more of a west-marches "quest board" game) and went all in with the sweeping travel and reshaping the world as we went style.

* How will this story evolve, and how will the world change permanently as a result? <---this one is one where heists and other narrow-focus genres leave me cold. I know the only ways the story can end. in essence, they have episodic continuity. Everything will return to the Status Quo Ante after they're done, one way or another. If captured, they'll escape (or we'll pick up with people who didn't get captured). If they succeed, they'll soon be back for another job. Each one is self-contained. I want narrative threads that weave together over many different arcs. I want to find ways of having the PCs act as catalysts of change for the world in ways I can't predict. That's the point of having players in a world, to be the flashpoints. To be the unpredictable element that makes me rethink things and keeps me interested for the next session. Anything where I can plan more than a session or two out gets stale.

And I quickly found that my players love leaving a mark on the setting. Encountering prior characters, now NPCs. Knowing that the choices they made mattered, that it wasn't just going to get reset for the next group. I've had no murder hobos or even close in over 14 groups, mostly filled with teenagers and new players. And that's been a beautiful thing. And some of them have even said that they respected the setting because they saw that I had poured myself into it. That, to me, is special. And important. And if I can't do that because it isn't my world to start with, because I'm sharing ownership of it and have to work against decisions other people made, especially foundational ones, I can't maintain it. I tried in a shared setting. But we disagreed on aesthetics and goals, so I couldn't continue. I can't run a game in a world I don't enjoy 100%. Full stop.

* How can I weave these disparate threads the players have handed me into the tapestry of the world, with both being richer for it? I don't want to have the players build the world, because then it's too much in their hands and they're thinking of it as a movie. I want them to live in the world. To sink into it, and by doing so, show me how it can be better and richer. I've been blessed with a lot of like-minded players.

All of these are personal needs. But ones that most of the proposed "solutions" don't meet. And often for reasons completely indifferent to the amount of prep.



Detailed stat blocks for every thing. Give me a selection of generic monsters and a system that doesn't have a huge gap between optimization ceiling and floor. Give me well-written (or at least simple stat blocks) that don't make me have to cross-reference multiple sources during play.

Tightly-balanced tactical encounters. Theme matters way more to me--I don't really care about difficulty.

Tables. I don't even want to reference them except during prep, and only then for inspiration when I'm out of ideas.

Battle-scale maps, most of the time. I'd much rather just free-hand them on a wet-erase mat. But playing on line makes that rather more difficult. World and area maps are different, because those influence how things play out on a larger scale.

Cluedrew
2021-01-13, 09:49 AM
Not everyone believes that lowering prep is an inherently good thing.Clarification: I argued that reducing work (that is to say the prep you don't want to do) is an inherently good thing, its always going to be on of the positives in a trade-off whether you take it or not. Which does have a subjective component of what does the subject consider work but from there I think we can safely draw a few conclusions. If you have a counter to that I'll hear it but mostly I have just been struggling to get across what I am actually trying to say and people seem to be arguing against a different point. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding them.

It was supposed to start with that - what I thought was an - uncontroversial premise and then move on to things like talking about the types of preparation, different options for reducing them and when they are appropriate. So far though people seem mostly interested in discussing when they are inappropriate. Which is worth talking about but we can't really discuss trade-offs if only one side of the equation is acknowledged. In hindsight I have kind of been sticking to one side myself as kind of a reaction.


The principle is one of Conservation of Annoyance. Every system has approximately the same amount of total annoyance baked in. Not just game systems--this principle was developed for physics models originally.I am aware of conservation principles in physics, I think they are inappropriate in game design because I have seen a lot of systems and the amount of annoyance in system is not even close to a fixed constant. There are some bad systems out there. Maybe the fact the really annoying systems aren't usually successful might make the range seems smaller than it is.



And I can't do things like
* What if (a variation on) a 12th-century alchemist's understanding of physical laws were actually true, and what if we weave magic into everything to make it come out right? This is one of the underpinnings of my setting.

* How can I make the counter-intuitive and "unrealistic" and "gamefied" mechanics of 5e D&D make sense in a world that doesn't actually live by the rule-book (so no 4th-wall-breakage/in-universe metagaming)? Another major goal of my setting.

* What's over that hill? Let's find out.<---this one's a big one for me. I live for the moment when players look at the world map and go "oh, that's cool, let's go there!" when "there" is somewhere I don't have anything more than a vague idea for." Being forced to map out areas as players approach, especially with particular needs in mind. Much of my setting contains things I wouldn't have thought of on my own. Things that were prompted by a throw-away remark someone made, which then got me thinking.

I started my rebuilt setting thinking I'd follow the advice to "start small". I built a single village and its surroundings. And immediately the players said "What's over there?" pointing outside the walls I'd built. They wanted to explore, to see new things. To encounter new life and new civilizations. To boldy go...oh wait, wrong genre. But we were hooked. And I gave up the style I had thought I was going to play (more of a west-marches "quest board" game) and went all in with the sweeping travel and reshaping the world as we went style.

* How will this story evolve, and how will the world change permanently as a result? <---this one is one where heists and other narrow-focus genres leave me cold. I know the only ways the story can end. in essence, they have episodic continuity. Everything will return to the Status Quo Ante after they're done, one way or another. If captured, they'll escape (or we'll pick up with people who didn't get captured). If they succeed, they'll soon be back for another job. Each one is self-contained. I want narrative threads that weave together over many different arcs. I want to find ways of having the PCs act as catalysts of change for the world in ways I can't predict. That's the point of having players in a world, to be the flashpoints. To be the unpredictable element that makes me rethink things and keeps me interested for the next session. Anything where I can plan more than a session or two out gets stale.

And I quickly found that my players love leaving a mark on the setting. Encountering prior characters, now NPCs. Knowing that the choices they made mattered, that it wasn't just going to get reset for the next group. I've had no murder hobos or even close in over 14 groups, mostly filled with teenagers and new players. And that's been a beautiful thing. And some of them have even said that they respected the setting because they saw that I had poured myself into it. That, to me, is special. And important. And if I can't do that because it isn't my world to start with, because I'm sharing ownership of it and have to work against decisions other people made, especially foundational ones, I can't maintain it. I tried in a shared setting. But we disagreed on aesthetics and goals, so I couldn't continue. I can't run a game in a world I don't enjoy 100%. Full stop.

* How can I weave these disparate threads the players have handed me into the tapestry of the world, with both being richer for it? I don't want to have the players build the world, because then it's too much in their hands and they're thinking of it as a movie. I want them to live in the world. To sink into it, and by doing so, show me how it can be better and richer. I've been blessed with a lot of like-minded players.

All of these are personal needs. But ones that most of the proposed "solutions" don't meet. And often for reasons completely indifferent to the amount of prep.



Detailed stat blocks for every thing. Give me a selection of generic monsters and a system that doesn't have a huge gap between optimization ceiling and floor. Give me well-written (or at least simple stat blocks) that don't make me have to cross-reference multiple sources during play.

Tightly-balanced tactical encounters. Theme matters way more to me--I don't really care about difficulty.

Tables. I don't even want to reference them except during prep, and only then for inspiration when I'm out of ideas.

Battle-scale maps, most of the time. I'd much rather just free-hand them on a wet-erase mat. But playing on line makes that rather more difficult. World and area maps are different, because those influence how things play out on a larger scale.
Oddly enough this is actually very similar to my list and the second list is why I stopped playing D&D because it felt like I was hauling around a war game when I just wanted a role-playing game. I do enjoy war games on their own but the fusion of the two never worked for me.

Anyways I feel like I haven't said much of significance but I have also been staring at this for too long so time for me to go. Hope it's clear.

kyoryu
2021-01-13, 10:25 AM
Clarification: I argued that reducing work (that is to say the prep you don't want to do) is an inherently good thing, its always going to be on of the positives in a trade-off whether you take it or not. Which does have a subjective component of what does the subject consider work but from there I think we can safely draw a few conclusions. If you have a counter to that I'll hear it but mostly I have just been struggling to get across what I am actually trying to say and people seem to be arguing against a different point. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding them.

Lowering "work" (prep you don't want to do) is a benefit to the GM in isolation. Doing so may have other consequences which are negative, which can result in it not always being a net positive, especially for people that don't get saddled with the "work". (As a corollary, if you're arguing for high prep and you aren't the one doing the work, maybe you should think about what your position is saying, especially if you're crossing the line from "this is what I prefer, but I can understand why GMs don't wanna" to "no, if you don't do this you're making a terrible game")

But I'm with you - "less prep" and "more prep" are less interesting to me than "what kinds of prep are useful for what types of game structures?" and "where is the point of diminishing returns?" and "how much prep is necessary before things fall apart" and stuff like that.

Also "how do you improvise" is an interesting discussion, because I think people that don't know how to improvise think it's some kind of arcane art, and it's really not.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-13, 11:32 AM
Clarification: I argued that reducing work (that is to say the prep you don't want to do) is an inherently good thing, its always going to be on of the positives in a trade-off whether you take it or not. Which does have a subjective component of what does the subject consider work but from there I think we can safely draw a few conclusions. If you have a counter to that I'll hear it but mostly I have just been struggling to get across what I am actually trying to say and people seem to be arguing against a different point. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding them.

It was supposed to start with that - what I thought was an - uncontroversial premise and then move on to things like talking about the types of preparation, different options for reducing them and when they are appropriate. So far though people seem mostly interested in discussing when they are inappropriate. Which is worth talking about but we can't really discuss trade-offs if only one side of the equation is acknowledged. In hindsight I have kind of been sticking to one side myself as kind of a reaction.


When I first read the OP, I did not see it as an uncontroversial premise. Maybe because I don't see prep as "work" for the vast majority of the things that I do as prep. And it felt (subjectively, not necessarily intended) like another one of those "oh [D&D | rules-heavy game ] is awful, you should all play <other game> instead" screeds that I'm just so very sick of.

I completely agree that the conversation got side-tracked. But it felt very one-sided "prep is bad and systems that require it are bad and you should not use them", at least to me. Which provoked defensiveness, and, well, things spiraled downward. At least that's how I see it.



I am aware of conservation principles in physics, I think they are inappropriate in game design because I have seen a lot of systems and the amount of annoyance in system is not even close to a fixed constant. There are some bad systems out there. Maybe the fact the really annoying systems aren't usually successful might make the range seems smaller than it is.


One of the funny things about annoyance is that if it doesn't affect you, it's basically invisible. As a tongue-in-cheek, not intended entirely mathematically pseudo-law, the principle of Conservation of Annoyance has worked really well to remind me that there are no silver bullets. That generally when I think I'm making things better with no tradeoffs, I'm really just pushing the existing annoyance into a personal blind spot and might not see it.



Oddly enough this is actually very similar to my list and the second list is why I stopped playing D&D because it felt like I was hauling around a war game when I just wanted a role-playing game. I do enjoy war games on their own but the fusion of the two never worked for me.


I think that if I played 2e or 3e (or likely even 4e, if I did it "right") I might feel the same way. But for me, personally, 5e doesn't cause me any problems while giving me what I want.

Telok
2021-01-13, 01:08 PM
What's started to amaze me is how little the major game producers seem to be willing to make things easier. Intent, examples, explanations, advice on best practices, and highlighting important rules. All are missing to various extents in different games.

I've come to understand developer system blindness. I write and maintain software and websites. The internal website for an organization is for what are essentially "expert" users, people who already know what's going on and how things work. The public website requires a serious shift in thinking, you can't assume those users know anything. The software is the same way. As a developer I know, intimately, what the software does and how it works. So I know what will and won't work, how to hack something to get a certain result. But I also have to write the help files, which means approaching the system from a "knows nothing" perspective. Then you realize that the users don't read in-depth advice and help stuff that isn't presented front and center with highlights and exclamation points.

You have a system of rules? It doesn't matter if it's software or a game. The users are going to use the obvious stuff you put right in front of them. They'll use it how they assume it works based on previous experience with other systems and based on how it's presented. You cannot assume that they will look any further, read other documents, or look for solutions online. 90% of the users of your system will neither look nor think beyond the first thing they see.

I'm rewriting a game pdf for an OK but not well presented system. I'm building into that pdf dice rollers and random table rollers. Making things easier. I'm adding 'best practices' and 'if you change this' notes. The stealth & perception? The skills and rules will have a link to (and back from) an appendix page with picture examples of no roll, easy roll, hard roll, impossible, all based on what the system math gives for normal success rates and RL military research of spotting chances. The link in the rules is going to be a bold red "HOW TO".

This stuff isn't hard, it's starter mid-college unpaid intern difficulty to produce. But as a developer of a system of rules you have to understand that the users can come in knowing nothing and that 90% won't look past the obvious first instruction on the first page (and maybe a chart).

If your "how to play" section say "only roll when failure has consequences" and you show a chart with an average 15 target number... Well failing to swim risks drowning, thats a pretty severe consequence, so most users will roll. It doesn't matter if there's a note about not rolling sometimes tbat's under the swimming sub-section of the athletics skill in the character creation area, you didn't put any effort into making it stand out and there's no base swimming speed on the character sheet. So that roll? Well if your system does normal as 3d10 explode on 10 then it's an 66% chance, 2d12+3 as normal sees a 54% chance, and a 1d20+2 as normal sees a 40% chance. And because you emphasized "roll for consequences" in your how-to section but put the "don't roll most of the time" in a note in a sub-section by character creation most of your users will be rolling. If that wasn't your intention, you screwed up as a designer.

Been there, made that mistake. Learn from it and issue a fix rhat the users don't miss or don't get to avoid on accident.

Quertus
2021-01-13, 10:46 PM
The concept of "conservation of annoyance" encapsulates much of what I was trying to get across, I think.

Now, there's certainly *wrong* ways to do things. But once you hit a certain level of efficiency, it's all "cost benefit analysis" and "personal blind spots".

So it *may* be the case that the best tools would be discussions about "how to recognize your planning strengths and weaknesses", or tips like "here's the kind of things you'll likely need to run a heist" and "here's what *not* to prep if you want to learn how to give your players more agency".

IME, most "tools" of this sort do little more than display the author's biases and blind spots. And make things harder for those who don't share them.

But perhaps tools for identifying wasted effort, or to evaluate system vs purpose, could be useful. Or perhaps as a group we could write something with less single-author bias.

But, if you couldn't tell from 2e being my favorite system, yet me going straight to it for examples of "how not to run a heist", I have zero interest in heists, outside the planning phase. So, if we get into the nitty gritty, I'll be as biased as anyone, I imagine.

ImNotTrevor
2021-01-14, 11:51 AM
The concept of "conservation of annoyance" encapsulates much of what I was trying to get across, I think.

Now, there's certainly *wrong* ways to do things. But once you hit a certain level of efficiency, it's all "cost benefit analysis" and "personal blind spots".

So it *may* be the case that the best tools would be discussions about "how to recognize your planning strengths and weaknesses", or tips like "here's the kind of things you'll likely need to run a heist" and "here's what *not* to prep if you want to learn how to give your players more agency".

IME, most "tools" of this sort do little more than display the author's biases and blind spots. And make things harder for those who don't share them.

But perhaps tools for identifying wasted effort, or to evaluate system vs purpose, could be useful. Or perhaps as a group we could write something with less single-author bias.

But, if you couldn't tell from 2e being my favorite system, yet me going straight to it for examples of "how not to run a heist", I have zero interest in heists, outside the planning phase. So, if we get into the nitty gritty, I'll be as biased as anyone, I imagine.

This is exactly why I prefer small, narrow-focused systems more than large, broad-focus systems.

I deeply appreciate when a system understands what it is good at, and doesn't pretend it's good at other things.

Apocalypse World tells you exactly what it's for, and how to GM it to achieve what it achieves. You don't use Apocalypse World for a game about rebuilding the world. You don't use Apocalypse World for a scrappy bunch of survivors trying to survive in the immediate aftermath of the End Times. And it never pretends you could or should. Apocalypse World has a tight focus, and because of that it's able to give you exactly what you need to run it well.

I would much rather have a system say "Hey, this is what the system does. Here's how to GM it right" so I can say "eh, not interested" or "yeah, that sounds fun" in short order, rather than a system that tries to be "THE RPG for (insert a broad genre here)" and I have to figure out everything else brute-force on my own and maybe end up years later saying "Wow, this isn't what I want AT ALL." (What happened with me and 3.5)

And here's the thing:
The ability to look at a system and very quickly decide it isn't for you?
I consider that a STRENGTH of a system.

I don't want a system to waste my time. Tell me what you do, tell me honestly, and let me decide if that's what I want.

I happen to really enjoy the particular thing Apocalypse World does. I will never say "Apocalypse World is good for everyone." It's good for everyone who likes The Thing AW Does, though.

I've found various systems where I like The Thing It Does. I tend to dislike systems that claim "I Can Do All These Things" because, usually? They can't. Not without me putting in a LOT of effort to fill in gaps.

Quertus
2021-01-14, 02:47 PM
This is exactly why I prefer small, narrow-focused systems more than large, broad-focus systems.

Huh. So if I want to tell the story of "these characters (in this world)", does that mean that I inherently require "large, broad-focus systems"? (EDIT: or that they have to constantly switch systems? "Oh, you want to pull a heist? Convert your character to…"?)

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-14, 03:26 PM
Huh. So if I want to tell the story of "these characters (in this world)", does that mean that I inherently require "large, broad-focus systems"? (EDIT: or that they have to constantly switch systems? "Oh, you want to pull a heist? Convert your character to…"?)

That's a concern I have as well, one that pulls me away from more focused games. I want to be able to follow the emerging story of the characters and the world wherever it goes. And that might involve changing focus--this part's pure exploration, that part's a hack-and-slash dungeon crawl, this other part is more political intrigue, this other part is PIRATES!, and the last is weird wacky character drama.

I'm not telling "the story of when we robbed the bank", I'm telling the story of "how Enigma changed the world of Quartus." And since I don't know what that means yet (since they haven't done it), I can't select a narrow-focus game to fit it. And it's overwhelmingly likely that the focus will change multiple times.

I'm fine with specifying genre and primary focus, as long as it's broad enough. For me, that means that I need a "heroic fantasy adventure" game. Where "heroic" means something like "not gritty/overly logistic" and "fantasy" means "magic and strange monsters, not lasers and spaceships or real-world. and "adventure" means "going out and doing things, often involving strange new places and creatures, including combat".

So for me, personally, 5e D&D does what I want it to do. I'm fine adding in the rules and mechanisms for social stuff as I need them, based on context. Whereas having large and detailed combat rules helps because I'm worse at doing those in a fun manner. That is, 5e D&D handles the parts that I don't want to prep for me acceptably (for my use case). Even if it's not focused around investigation, social stuff, or whatever, at least it doesn't get in my way when I add stuff in.

On the other hand, other games wouldn't work for that. FATE doesn't have crunchy enough combat for my players and is too abstract. Plus, in keeping with the OP, I'd have to do lots of work to prep all the people, plots, etc. GURPS is way too gritty and mechanized. More focused games don't handle the focus changes well enough. A slice-of-life character drama wouldn't handle the "epic" delve into Borrowed Song to defeat the demon. A pure dungeon crawler wouldn't handle the investigation of the political situation in Wyrmhold. And the setting isn't post-apocalyptic in the sense that AW needs--basically all the governments are more or less functional and at peace, things mostly work, etc.

ImNotTrevor
2021-01-14, 05:22 PM
Huh. So if I want to tell the story of "these characters (in this world)", does that mean that I inherently require "large, broad-focus systems"? (EDIT: or that they have to constantly switch systems? "Oh, you want to pull a heist? Convert your character to…"?)

Depends on how many things you want them to do, and where you want to focus.

I personally have come to prefer narrow-focus systems and short campaigns (8-16 sessions), where we get to have a beginning, middle, and end without dedicating one or more IRL years, and since we do character-focused systems, we get to explore the hell out of the characters within that timeframe.

If you want to have a story that could theoretically go anywhere and involve anything, you'd need a system that could theoretically go anywhere and do anything. I don't see that as a controversial statement any more so than "putting things in water makes things wet." It would kinda... logically follow.

The two ways to achieve that system are "highly specific" and "highly abstract." Fate can do a lot, but even IT has a "pop adventure" aesthetic that leads to most campaigns I've ever done in Fate ending up feeling like Guardians of the Galaxy if it were in different genres. Which is very fun, if that's the sort of thing you like. (It is, for me, so I do like it.)

Yora
2021-01-15, 04:44 AM
I think at the very least, any story needs to know what kind of genre it's supposed to be. And that's precisely what the choice of rules system for a campaign deals with.
To get invested in a story, you need to understand its internal logic and themes. I don't think a story that could potentially go anywhere and mignt switch genres at random can really work. Players need some basic assumptions to work with.

Satinavian
2021-01-15, 05:25 AM
We do have enough genre switching that generally the focussed systems are not that good a fit and we tend to use systems that can do more things.

But we still have main themes/genre for campaigns which is what is considered most during character building. It is not a problem if the PCs are like fish out of the water in some sidestory that popped up organically. But it is preferrable if that sidestory can still be handled without changing the ruleset or doing lots of handwaving.

Tanarii
2021-01-15, 08:46 AM
Clarification: I argued that reducing work (that is to say the prep you don't want to do) is an inherently good thing, its always going to be on of the positives in a trade-off whether you take it or not. Which does have a subjective component of what does the subject consider work but from there I think we can safely draw a few conclusions. If you have a counter to that I'll hear it but mostly I have just been struggling to get across what I am actually trying to say and people seem to be arguing against a different point. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding them.Its also subjective in that "work" and "[stuff] you don't want to do" are not synonymous.


So for me, personally, 5e D&D does what I want it to do. I'm fine adding in the rules and mechanisms for social stuff as I need them, based on context. Whereas having large and detailed combat rules helps because I'm worse at doing those in a fun manner. That is, 5e D&D handles the parts that I don't want to prep for me acceptably (for my use case). Even if it's not focused around investigation, social stuff, or whatever, at least it doesn't get in my way when I add stuff in.Thats pretty shocking, because DND in general and 5e in particular is an extremely narrowly focused game, that constantly gets in the way if you try to step outside what it wants you to do.

I'm incredibly happy doing what it wants me to do, because I'm either making a character to do that and want to see how they develop within that context. Or running a game and am comfortable with that game style (because it's what I grew up on).

What it's terrible for is "follow the emerging story of the characters and the world wherever it goes".

Quertus
2021-01-15, 08:54 AM
Thats pretty shocking, because DND in general and 5e in particular is an extremely narrowly focused game, that constantly gets in the way if you try to step outside what it wants you to do.

What it's terrible for is "making a character and following their story, whatever they choose to do in the world".

I'm not terribly familiar with 5e - can you give an example of a system which you consider good for unfocused play, and contrast it with the D&D line to explain your stance?

Tanarii
2021-01-15, 09:18 AM
I'm not terribly familiar with 5e - can you give an example of a system which you consider good for unfocused play, and contrast it with the D&D line to explain your stance?
Uh ... none. You play an RPG to do what it focuses on, and they all do it pretty heavily. None of them are designed to follow a character through whatever story of them generically and unfocused.

If one tried to be, it would be a pretty terrible experience for anything. Probably not as bad as taking a focused one outside it's are of focus, but probably not very good at anything in particular.

Edit: actually, I should say none I've ever read. I've never read fate/fudge or savage worlds. I guess I've heard lots about them being pretty much exactly that. Generic but poor.

kyoryu
2021-01-15, 09:42 AM
Uh ... none. You play an RPG to do what it focuses on, and they all do it pretty heavily. None of them are designed to follow a character through whatever story of them generically and unfocused.

If one tried to be, it would be a pretty terrible experience for anything. Probably not as bad as taking a focused one outside it's are of focus, but probably not very good at anything in particular.

Edit: actually, I should say none I've ever read. I've never read fate/fudge or savage worlds. I guess I've heard lots about them being pretty much exactly that. Generic but poor.

Fate does "games that play out like adventure movies" pretty well. It doesn't do a lot of things well at all (I wouldn't use it for a dungeon crawl, for instance). It's reasonable for other drama-like things.

Fortunately "adventure movies" sums up a lot of the stuff I want to roleplay, so it works for me.

Darth Credence
2021-01-15, 09:54 AM
Its also subjective in that "work" and "[stuff] you don't want to do" are not synonymous.

Thats pretty shocking, because DND in general and 5e in particular is an extremely narrowly focused game, that constantly gets in the way if you try to step outside what it wants you to do.

I'm incredibly happy doing what it wants me to do, because I'm either making a character to do that and want to see how they develop within that context. Or running a game and am comfortable with that game style (because it's what I grew up on).

What it's terrible for is "follow the emerging story of the characters and the world wherever it goes".

I have no idea why you would think that, but if you have some objective data that supports it, I'd love to see it. I'm running a campaign now that has been all over the place in what we do - from delving dungeons, to a con/heist, to helping an old married couple (of magic users) rekindle the spark, and rapidly approaching a Super Bowl half time style musical event. In no way has the system ever constrained our ability to do whatever comes next. I'm sure that any one of those things could have been handled better in a system focused entirely on that, but I doubt there is one that would have been clearly better at accommodating all of them.

kyoryu
2021-01-15, 10:36 AM
I have no idea why you would think that, but if you have some objective data that supports it, I'd love to see it. I'm running a campaign now that has been all over the place in what we do - from delving dungeons, to a con/heist, to helping an old married couple (of magic users) rekindle the spark, and rapidly approaching a Super Bowl half time style musical event. In no way has the system ever constrained our ability to do whatever comes next. I'm sure that any one of those things could have been handled better in a system focused entirely on that, but I doubt there is one that would have been clearly better at accommodating all of them.

D&D mostly does zero-to-superhero progression, highly "heroic", combat-centric games.

The stuff it does outside of that is mostly done by ignoring the system and mostly going freeform.

It doesn't mean you didn't do those things in your D&D game. It just means that people are saying the system itself didn't do a ton to help you out in that.

KaussH
2021-01-15, 10:48 AM
Uh ... none. You play an RPG to do what it focuses on, and they all do it pretty heavily. None of them are designed to follow a character through whatever story of them generically and unfocused.

If one tried to be, it would be a pretty terrible experience for anything. Probably not as bad as taking a focused one outside it's are of focus, but probably not very good at anything in particular.

Edit: actually, I should say none I've ever read. I've never read fate/fudge or savage worlds. I guess I've heard lots about them being pretty much exactly that. Generic but poor.

Yikes, generic but poor? You may want to play some fate and savage worlds :)

Savage worlds can be used very tightly or loosely depending on the gm, i use it for one shots that i want a bit more crunch in, as well as longer stuff like deadlands ( horror western) that has a wide range of activites. Now you can use sw to run almost anything ( check out some of the sw jumpstarts) but once you make/choose the setting it can be as open or focused as you want.

Fate, for me, is a beer and pretzels game. I dont run campaigns in it as it doesnt seem to hold day by day well, but its great for one shots and arcs. It can be slotted with extra bits pretty easy, restricted and opened up, and has a very "action hero" feel. You can go more serious with it, but it has an in the moment feel. I wouldnt use it for a horror or kingmaker style game, but heists, robberys, super heros, gore horror... they would all work.

Also fate works better with a team of players, the way you can stack and assist works well for group feels.

EggKookoo
2021-01-15, 11:59 AM
The stuff it does outside of [combat] is mostly done by ignoring the system and mostly going freeform.

Yes and no. D&D 5e's ability-score-based resolution system (i.e. skills) is really pretty flexible and can be used to handle challenges that aren't explicitly combat. For example, persuasion checks aren't limited to charisma. A character could make an intelligence (persuasion) check to appeal to a librarian's love of obscure information, or a wisdom (persuasion) check by pointing out something unobvious but true about the situation (something Silent Bob was known for). Or even a constitution (persuasion) check by putting up with physical stress without caving or breaking down (think G'Kar refusing to scream when whipped, although that could also be intimidation). Sure, there's a lot of GM judgement call involved but that's not unique to D&D.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-15, 12:11 PM
Yes and no. D&D 5e's ability-score-based resolution system (i.e. skills) is really pretty flexible and can be used to handle challenges that aren't explicitly combat. For example, persuasion checks aren't limited to charisma. A character could make an intelligence (persuasion) check to appeal to a librarian's love of obscure information, or a wisdom (persuasion) check by pointing out something unobvious but true about the situation (something Silent Bob was known for). Or even a constitution (persuasion) check by putting up with physical stress without caving or breaking down (think G'Kar refusing to scream when whipped, although that could also be intimidation). Sure, there's a lot of GM judgement call involved but that's not unique to D&D.

And for me, I have a lot fewer problems adding to a system where it basically provides no/minimal guidance compared to having to hack out existing mechanics and dealing with the broken expected interactions.

So having lots of support for combat and not a lot elsewhere works for me because I need the most support in combat and can handle the rest mostly myself. Whereas if you had very opinionated support for other stuff, I'd be much more constrained by the core assumptions of the system.

King of Nowhere
2021-01-15, 02:41 PM
And for me, I have a lot fewer problems adding to a system where it basically provides no/minimal guidance compared to having to hack out existing mechanics and dealing with the broken expected interactions.

So having lots of support for combat and not a lot elsewhere works for me because I need the most support in combat and can handle the rest mostly myself. Whereas if you had very opinionated support for other stuff, I'd be much more constrained by the core assumptions of the system.

works for me too. my group does a lot of different stuff, and we never for a moment stopped to think "wait, but d&d does not support this stuff!"

D&D mostly does zero-to-superhero progression, highly "heroic", combat-centric games.

The stuff it does outside of that is mostly done by ignoring the system and mostly going freeform.

It doesn't mean you didn't do those things in your D&D game. It just means that people are saying the system itself didn't do a ton to help you out in that.
well, yes, ok. now that I analyze what we've been doing, i realize that's true.
still, i wouldn't call it bad. or, at least, it's as good as one can realistically get.
I think, if you trouble yourself too much on thinking what the system is focused on doing or not, you are missing a lot of opportunities.

Quertus
2021-01-15, 02:58 PM
D&D does not "get in the way of" that other stuff - and it even has branches (like skills and mental stats and dice resolution mechanics) onto which one might choose to hang some of those things.

5e's Bounded Accuracy, OTOH, gets in the way, in that, if I want to convince you of something, my best bet is not to formulate the best argument I can, but to hire a hundred of whoever will work for the cheapest to try to convince you.

It's a "victory of the masses", "lowest bidder" system. And I'm too much of a Playground Determinator to ever play it any other way - doing do would be highly suboptimal.

EggKookoo
2021-01-15, 02:59 PM
works for me too. my group does a lot of different stuff, and we never for a moment stopped to think "wait, but d&d does not support this stuff!"

One thing I wish 5e had was some kind of generic resource PCs could tap into or spend to assist with non-combat rolls. Like a limited supply of bonus dice, rest-recoverable, that can be added to persuasion checks, and things like that (and hey, combat rolls too, why not?). That would turn social encounters into resource-management things just like combat, which in turn would make it easier (possible!) to assign CRs to them, and therefore award XP for them.

I'm in no hurry for a 6e, but that's something I would like to see.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-15, 03:05 PM
D&D does not "get in the way of" that other stuff - and it even has branches (like skills and mental stats and dice resolution mechanics) onto which one might choose to hang some of those things.

5e's Bounded Accuracy, OTOH, gets in the way, in that, if I want to convince you of something, my best bet is not to formulate the best argument I can, but to hire a hundred of whoever will work for the cheapest to try to convince you.

It's a "victory of the masses", "lowest bidder" system. And I'm too much of a Playground Determinator to ever play it any other way - doing do would be highly suboptimal.

Only if your DM lets you do repeated checks, which is recommended against in the DMG. Literally--it says that you generally get one shot at things and your check result represents your best attempt. Only for things that can be retried without chance of failure is anything else possible, and those generally don't require rolls if they're possible at all. And says that if you present persuasive arguments you might not even need to roll at all. So formulating persuasive arguments is much better than trying to hire a bunch of people to...do what, fictionally? They're not there right then, are they? Any reasonable interlocutor would get annoyed, rather than persuaded.

You're trying to hack the rules, rather than play the fiction using the rules. And that's something that 5e absolutely does not support. It expects active DM involvement in going "wait, that's stupid and crazy. No." Or, conversely, "that's exactly what the NPC wanted to hear, he agrees. No check needed."


One thing I wish 5e had was some kind of generic resource PCs could tap into or spend to assist with non-combat rolls. Like a limited supply of bonus dice, rest-recoverable, that can be added to persuasion checks, and things like that (and hey, combat rolls too, why not?). That would turn social encounters into resource-management things just like combat, which in turn would make it easier (possible!) to assign CRs to them, and therefore award XP for them.

I'm in no hurry for a 6e, but that's something I would like to see.

I've considered doing something with inspiration for this, but haven't formalized it yet.

Telok
2021-01-15, 03:16 PM
Yes and no. D&D 5e's ability-score-based resolution system (i.e. skills) is really pretty flexible and can be used to handle challenges that aren't explicitly combat.

From a system overview level the base D&D 5e mechanic of d20+stat with binary success/fail is no different than, say, Lasers & Feelings base mechanic of d6 under stat binary success/fail (two stats, lasers & feelings, split 6 points between them). In fact it's barely different from coin flipping at this point because the only thing that's different is it isn't locked at 50/50 chances.

I wouldn't call the flat d20 & binary success mechanic flexible. It's simple, but unless you hack it to be less simple you only have two possible results. You can use it in different ways, but you can use coin flipping in those same ways. Interestingly D&D 4e & 5e don't use the same base mechanic for combat and non-combat. The automatic success/fail on 1s/20s is a significant deviation from the declared base die roll system.

Compare games to writing. A blank sheet of paper and a pen let you write anything, but they offer no guidance or help in writing. A book of writing prompts, guidelines, and examples can help. A good writer may not need that, a beginning writer can find lots of use in basic assistance. D&D 4e & 5e have combat as almost a "fill in the blanks and choose the next paragraph from a table based on what you put in the blanks" feel to it's combat rules, but "here are 5 prompts a blank paper and a crayon" for non-combat rules. Experienced DMs may like that, they only have to choose monsters and terrain from a list to get a standard D&D combat then they can freeform everything else.

My D&D 4e DM loved the easy combat prep in that system, but he admitted he was terrible at doing everything else freeform and those parts were lots of work for him to get results from just ok to "lets skip the rest of this". My D&D 5e DM was inexperienced, that one just followed directions in the book. The result was standard D&D combat and terrible everything else because they weren't good at "make it all up on your own".

When DMing I have no more problems changing or cutting non-combat rules than combat rules. They're all just rules. What I appreciate is having decent rules to use or base my changes on. That's work I don't have to do mid-game. Paranoia was nice to run. A simple mission, simple npcs (about 10 stats total plus gear a power and a secret society), conflicting secret society goals, some iffy R&D experimental tech, an actual unified die mechanic, and a couple building floor plans off the internet.

So I wouldn't say that a no/lite rules area of a game makes for no/less prep. In fact 4e & 5e D&D's restrictive rules, rule heavy combat, and tons of published monsters seems to reduce combat prep for many people and provides an ok minimum quality level for combat encounters. Those systems biggest mechanical problems and workload for DMs seems to be everything but the combats.

Quertus
2021-01-15, 03:37 PM
Only if your DM lets you do repeated checks, which is recommended against in the DMG. Literally--it says that you generally get one shot at things and your check result represents your best attempt. Only for things that can be retried without chance of failure is anything else possible, and those generally don't require rolls if they're possible at all. And says that if you present persuasive arguments you might not even need to roll at all. So formulating persuasive arguments is much better than trying to hire a bunch of people to...do what, fictionally? They're not there right then, are they? Any reasonable interlocutor would get annoyed, rather than persuaded.

You're trying to hack the rules, rather than play the fiction using the rules. And that's something that 5e absolutely does not support. It expects active DM involvement in going "wait, that's stupid and crazy. No." Or, conversely, "that's exactly what the NPC wanted to hear, he agrees. No check needed."

I hire 50 people to post stories about how bad bounced accuracy is?

A good system - a good rule - can more or less always be followed; a bad system needs constant tuning by the GM. Bounded Accuracy is a bad system.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-15, 03:45 PM
1) I hire 50 people to post stories about how bad bounced accuracy is?

2) A good system - a good rule - can more or less always be followed; a bad system needs constant tuning by the GM. 3) Bounded Accuracy is a bad system.

I disagree. Hiring a bunch of sockpuppets makes you less credible, not more.

2) Then there are no good rules. Because fundamentally there's a threshold question for every situation--what rule, if any, applies here. And that always takes manual adjudication, as rules are not self-executing. Any rule or ruleset that is complete enough to not need adjustment is also too complex to actually use--even computers have some fixed "rulings" in place for their specific situations. As soon as you allow for more than board-game complexity (ie anything other than a fixed set of interactions on a fixed play field), you need some sort of "tuning". 3e had it, it just tried to pretend it didn't. 2e was all about manual tweaking. 4e tried to get away from it and failed miserably at doing so. 5e realized that it was inevitable and leaned into it.

3. I disagree. Unbounded systems cause way more un-physical and gameable (in the bad sense) outcomes. More than that, what you're complaining about is not bounded accuracy at all, it's 5e's approach to "rulings over rules." Bounded accuracy needs no tweaks, as it's not even a formalized rule. It's a design principle that underlies the rules.

kyoryu
2021-01-15, 04:16 PM
well, yes, ok. now that I analyze what we've been doing, i realize that's true.
still, i wouldn't call it bad. or, at least, it's as good as one can realistically get.
I think, if you trouble yourself too much on thinking what the system is focused on doing or not, you are missing a lot of opportunities.

Well, there's certain things it's just not good at. "I start competent, and get broader" isn't a supported mode, really, nor is "I start competent, and get a bit more competent but not superhero levels". And combats that don't end in complete defeat of the other party aren't directly supported - at least, the easiest way to end a combat is total defeat, there's no first-class way of handling "getting away" by either side.

The structure of the game is so combat-centric - I mean, classes are hte primary differentiation feature of characters, and they're defined by combat role - that doing something non-combat-focused is really weird.

A lot of the other stuff is just the game not doing much of anything either way to support or hinder, so is a neutral.

Oberoni aside, the type of game that D&D "wants" to run is fairly clear (also evidenced by the published modules), and is, if you look at the broad variety of "stories" you could tell, fairly niche and narrow.



3. I disagree. Unbounded systems cause way more un-physical and gameable (in the bad sense) outcomes. More than that, what you're complaining about is not bounded accuracy at all, it's 5e's approach to "rulings over rules." Bounded accuracy needs no tweaks, as it's not even a formalized rule. It's a design principle that underlies the rules.

Part of that is the fact that D&D has (since 3.x anyway) combined difficulty and permission into one thing... IOW, D&D hasn't been comfortable with saying "no, you can't do <x> without <y>", it just says "the difficulty for <x> is <z>, and <y> will give you enough bonus to make it."

Which doesn't really work without unbounded accuracy, and also produces some weird results. I vastly prefer systems where permission is mostly handled separately, and as permission.

Telok
2021-01-15, 05:18 PM
I disagree. Hiring a bunch of sockpuppets makes you less credible, not more.

On the other hand 50 people spreading rumors in taverns that the king is a doppleganger is more effective at convincing the guards than an homeless random adventurer yelling at a gate. That takes longer though.

Quertus's beef is that, run as written in the book, having 40 commoners following you to read magic runes is more likely to produce consistent succeesses than one genius archmage. It takes the DM saying "no, here we ignore the rules because they don't work for this" to make the game run smoothly. Thus, by his metrics, a rule that you have to repeatedly overrule is a bad rule.

The issue of even using the rules is another point of difference. Say a player wants to get past a guard, orc, or chimera. If they say they swing a sword, shoot a bow, or cast a spell then there's no questions about if the rules work or apply. It's just roll initative and choose from the combat options menu. If they want to seduce their way past you start by questioning if you want to use the rules, if there are any rules to use, then if those rules are worth using and how to use them. Then, once the DM has answered those questions you can get back to playing the game. To some people a rule that you have to make all those decisions for, repeated and while playing, is a bad rule because it adds more work and takes time without adding value.

EggKookoo
2021-01-15, 07:16 PM
I wouldn't call the flat d20 & binary success mechanic flexible. It's simple, but unless you hack it to be less simple you only have two possible results. You can use it in different ways, but you can use coin flipping in those same ways. Interestingly D&D 4e & 5e don't use the same base mechanic for combat and non-combat. The automatic success/fail on 1s/20s is a significant deviation from the declared base die roll system.

I guess it depends on how you're using "flexible." I mean it in the sense that the mechanic can be used in a variety of ways to cover a variety of needs without breaking or even really deviating from its core. D&D's d20 ability-score-plus-mod-vs-DC thing can be used for all sorts of interactions, especially once you embrace that more than one ability is often eligible, depending on how the player contextualizes the desired action.

One thing D&D doesn't have is a non-combat mechanic for gauging degrees of success. You either bribe the guard or you don't. Any variation is left up to pure roleplaying ("the guard is skeptical, but lets you pass" or "the guard opens the door himself and gestures you through with a smile"). Which isn't nothing, of course. I believe the experience of roleplaying out the guard's attitude is a vital element of the game. But I also see how it's not the same thing as deducting HP during combat. Is that how you're defining "flexible?"

Quertus
2021-01-15, 07:32 PM
I disagree. Hiring a bunch of sockpuppets makes you less credible, not more.

Thank you for agreeing with me that Bounded Accuracy fails to model either reality or fiction.


Quertus's beef is that, run as written in the book, having 40 commoners following you to read magic runes is more likely to produce consistent succeesses than one genius archmage. It takes the DM saying "no, here we ignore the rules because they don't work for this" to make the game run smoothly. Thus, by his metrics, a rule that you have to repeatedly overrule is a bad rule.

Precisely. Bounded Accuracy is the new Captain Hobo. And, because there is awareness of this, the rules for checks get circumvented frequently, demonstrating how it is a bad rule that cannot be used.

Cluedrew
2021-01-15, 07:46 PM
Stuff happened, I was delayed and enough posts have been made I'm going to let whatever I saying before go. I barely remember what it was.

On D20 System: I'm actually going to say whether a resolution system (d20+stat, 2d6+stat, dice pools, roll and keep...) is good or not is largely subjective because a lot of it is about the feel of the mechanic. The parts we can quantify are rather meaningless on their own. For instance a +1 on a d6 is a much more significant change than it would be on a d20, you can do math about that. But neither significance nor granularity is better than the other. I have my opinions but that is kind of off topic.

On Combat Focus: D&D is too combat focused for me. Not unbearably so but I end up doing a lot of reading during combat because it takes a while and takes about 10 seconds for me to figure out what I am going to do next round which leaves me enough time to get a book out and find my place before the turn after me ends. Plus I have had problems where there are things just aren't supported. The main case was when I wanted to gather support/make contacts. The d20 system tells me that I succeeded, but provided no help to the GM on what succeeding in this social set-up move actually meant.

On Reframing: OK I think I am just going to throw out the old framing of my point and try to get the idea that systems should be easy & fast (relative to the other goals of the system/campaign). So to start, does that make sense on its own? If not, what do you think is unclear/what questions do you have?

EggKookoo
2021-01-15, 07:48 PM
Precisely. Bounded Accuracy is the new Captain Hobo. And, because there is awareness of this, the rules for checks get circumvented frequently, demonstrating how it is a bad rule that cannot be used.

Well, except that it's not ignoring the rules for the DM to declare that you can't make a particular check if you lack proficiency. Forty commoners proficient in arcana should produce pretty consistent results. We use development teams IRL for that reason (among others).

Telok
2021-01-15, 10:14 PM
I guess it depends on how you're using "flexible." I mean it in the sense that the mechanic can be used in a variety of ways to cover a variety of needs without breaking or even really deviating from its core. D&D's d20 ability-score-plus-mod-vs-DC thing can be used for all sorts of interactions, especially once you embrace that more than one ability is often eligible, depending on how the player contextualizes the desired action.

One thing D&D doesn't have is a non-combat mechanic for gauging degrees of success. You either bribe the guard or you don't. Any variation is left up to pure roleplaying ("the guard is skeptical, but lets you pass" or "the guard opens the door himself and gestures you through with a smile"). Which isn't nothing, of course. I believe the experience of roleplaying out the guard's attitude is a vital element of the game. But I also see how it's not the same thing as deducting HP during combat. Is that how you're defining "flexible?"

See, d20+stat vs. # is, to me, no different than d20-# under stat except in presentation. That's what we did in AD&D. Even changing the die size doesn't even make a difference as long as you're using a flat probability. Which means that other than presentation it's also the same as d100+mod vs. #, or d100-mod under skill. And Call of Cthulhu has used d100-mod under skill for it's entire existence (and also d100 under stat x5 which on a 3-18 scale is pretty much the same). So all this gushing over the 'flexibility' of d20+m vs. # goes right past me because it's nothing new and doesn't seem especially useful.

The 2009 anniversary Paranoia generates skill/stats in the 5-14 range, then gives a +/-4 for specialization/weakness and rolls a d20 against those. Ex: 1d10+4 for your Violence stat, then +4 to energy weapons (everyone gets that) and up to two more +4s in exchange for taking an equal number of -4s, so you could grab +4s in say agility & fine manipulation in exchange for -4s in thrown weapons and vehicle combat. It runs on d20 under the stat/skill, but on a modified blackjack style system. 1= barely a success, maybe with complications. Roll your number exactly and it's a crit success. Roll one above and it's barely a fail. And 20= crit fail. Opposed checks are simple, the higher successful check wins. There's an option to put a minimum on a roll, so min 8 says that anyone with 7 or less stat/skill can't succeed. There's a option to do degrees of success (the weapon damage system works this way) by setting a threshold number and getting a better success for every multiple of it. With that you'd say something was a threshold 4 boot-licking check and the character rolls boot-licking, or the management stat if they aren't specialized or weak in boot-licking. A character with 11 boot-licking has a 55% success rate and can get up to two additional degrees of success, if they had a 16 boot-licking 80% success rate and up to 4 degrees of success. To me this is much more flexible than d20+stuff and there's even less math.

I can set a minimum "trained only" competency without having character sheets memorized ('does the barbarian have a +2 or +4 to arcana that he shouldn't roll and was the wizard a +7 or +9?'), it inherently does degrees of success if I want that, people with a good skill are significantly better than the unskilled in both quantity of successes and in the quality of the successes. Plus because Paranoia is a comedy game the flat probability of a d20 is a benefit when it produces the inevitable Three Stooges situations instead of a drawback.

NigelWalmsley
2021-01-15, 10:33 PM
Well, except that it's not ignoring the rules for the DM to declare that you can't make a particular check if you lack proficiency.

It may not be ignoring the rules, but it's also not solving the problem. The problem is just how the system works on a basic mathematical level. You can bypass the system so you don't hit the problem, but it's still there. It's also not the only problem Bounded Accuracy has (e.g. in a single trial, experts lose to novices an unreasonably large percentage of the time).


Forty commoners proficient in arcana should produce pretty consistent results. We use development teams IRL for that reason (among others).

That's a bad argument. The goal is verisimilitude, not realism. How many fantasy stories can you remember where the protagonists said "we need to unravel the secrets of X, let's fund a large research team" versus "we need to unravel the secrets of X, let's ask Bob, our resident expert on X"?

EggKookoo
2021-01-15, 10:49 PM
See, d20+stat vs. # is, to me, no different than d20-# under stat except in presentation. That's what we did in AD&D. Even changing the die size doesn't even make a difference as long as you're using a flat probability. Which means that other than presentation it's also the same as d100+mod vs. #, or d100-mod under skill. And Call of Cthulhu has used d100-mod under skill for it's entire existence (and also d100 under stat x5 which on a 3-18 scale is pretty much the same). So all this gushing over the 'flexibility' of d20+m vs. # goes right past me because it's nothing new and doesn't seem especially useful.

Right, I think we're looking at different things when we talk about flexibility.


It may not be ignoring the rules, but it's also not solving the problem. The problem is just how the system works on a basic mathematical level. You can bypass the system so you don't hit the problem, but it's still there. It's also not the only problem Bounded Accuracy has (e.g. in a single trial, experts lose to novices an unreasonably large percentage of the time).

It solves the problem nicely. If there's a threshold for success, such as specialized knowledge, the weirdness of the amateur beating the expert goes away. Which is how it actually happens in reality. My manager doesn't know how to code. I could clone 100 of him and they wouldn't be able to do my job.


That's a bad argument. The goal is verisimilitude, not realism. How many fantasy stories can you remember where the protagonists said "we need to unravel the secrets of X, let's fund a large research team" versus "we need to unravel the secrets of X, let's ask Bob, our resident expert on X"?

Where, in an actual D&D game, are you getting this large research team in the middle of a dungeon crawl? And if you are capable of conjuring up this kind of team, it sounds like you're playing some kind of Rick & Morty scenario where the team is made up of all Ricks, and I think I described an episode of a fantasy story I watched not more than a couple of days ago.

NigelWalmsley
2021-01-15, 11:20 PM
It solves the problem nicely. If there's a threshold for success, such as specialized knowledge, the weirdness of the amateur beating the expert goes away. Which is how it actually happens in reality. My manager doesn't know how to code. I could clone 100 of him and they wouldn't be able to do my job.

But what about when there isn't a threshold for success? What if you're having an arm-wrestling competition, or making a burrito, or engaging in any of a thousand other tasks that the system does not gatekeep behind some particular skill? Also, this is just the Oberoni Fallacy.

And it's not just "expert v amateur". It's "expert v novice" too. It's true that, when skill levels are relatively close, numbers dominate. But as companies that have experimented with offshoring can attest, numbers aren't always sufficient to overcome skill gaps. Bounded Accuracy simply does not model characters that are superlatively skilled. Given that this is the entire point of the system, I'm baffled that you're insisting otherwise.


Where, in an actual D&D game, are you getting this large research team in the middle of a dungeon crawl? And if you are capable of conjuring up this kind of team, it sounds like you're playing some kind of Rick & Morty scenario where the team is made up of all Ricks, and I think I described an episode of a fantasy story I watched not more than a couple of days ago.

You seem to have missed the point. The question was not "has this ever happened at all". The question was "which of these is representative of the genre".

KaussH
2021-01-15, 11:25 PM
So, even tho this is a side point, a bonded accuracy question and npcs and skills.. why do npcs use the same rules as pcs for skills and profs..I mean, in so many other places (classes vs stat blocks, stat mods vs stat blocks, powers and abilities vs (you guessed it) stat blocks) why dont npcs just use skills in the stat block. No skill, no roll.

Then just pcs are using the crazy swing of skills and bonded accuracy. Everyone else is a more "I am good at x, and cant do other stuff well at all. "

Telok
2021-01-15, 11:37 PM
Right, I think we're looking at different things when we talk about flexibility.

Possibly. It's just the d20+mod thing doesn't do anything it hasn't already done for 30 years and isn't any different from a straight die roll with different target numbers for different characters.

It solves the problem nicely. If there's a threshold for success, such as specialized knowledge, the weirdness of the amateur beating the expert goes away. Which is how it actually happens in reality. My manager doesn't know how to code. I could clone 100 of him and they wouldn't be able to do my job.But D&D 5e's "bounded" stuff doesn't do that unless your manager has a serious Int penalty or the DC of putting "Hello world" on the screen is 21+. If the manager is just "average" and the DC is 20 or less you just have them work in teams of two (helping) and keep those programs that work.
Where, in an actual D&D game, are you getting this large research team in the middle of a dungeon crawl?

Hirelings. They carry loot and torches for you. They're a bit out of vogue these days but "bounded accuracy" on perception/investigation checks makes them extremely powerful.

Anyways, I just find that having a structure or framework for stuff is useful but I dislike things that are so structured they prevent people from doing fun and interesting things. The last couple iterations of D&D do both those things, restrictive and inflexible on combat but unreliable and without any structure outside of combat.

EggKookoo
2021-01-16, 06:36 AM
But what about when there isn't a threshold for success? What if you're having an arm-wrestling competition, or making a burrito, or engaging in any of a thousand other tasks that the system does not gatekeep behind some particular skill?

The system doesn't gatekeep any task behind a particular skill proficiency. The system tells the DM that he may choose to gatekeep a particular task behind proficiency, if the context warrants it. The system also tells the DM to decide if he should just look at passive scores and decide an outcome, again if the context warrants it. This is not houseruling or ignoring the mechanics, which is why...


Also, this is just the Oberoni Fallacy.

...is not accurate.

This gatekeeping can be applied to burrito-making if that makes sense. And using passive scores instead of rolling dice can be applied to an arm wrestle if that makes sense. If the DM invokes dice, then circumstances are such that the outcome is not really certain. Sure, there are arguments to be made that the rules don't provide enough detail for the DM to make that decision, but I think that's a separate argument and I'm not convinced it's really true. It's true that a new DM may struggle to make consistent and sensible decisions around this kind of stuff, but a new player may also struggle to build a PC that fits his or her imagination. Over time, though, both sets of players will get more comfortable with the system. I've found, as a 5e DM, I grok what it's getting at mechanically more and more as I play. I know my players have made the same progression.


And it's not just "expert v amateur". It's "expert v novice" too. It's true that, when skill levels are relatively close, numbers dominate. But as companies that have experimented with offshoring can attest, numbers aren't always sufficient to overcome skill gaps. Bounded Accuracy simply does not model characters that are superlatively skilled. Given that this is the entire point of the system, I'm baffled that you're insisting otherwise.

BA by itself will have trouble modeling this, yes. BA + the other tools the DM has at his disposal can do it moderately well. At the same time...


You seem to have missed the point. The question was not "has this ever happened at all". The question was "which of these is representative of the genre".

...since we're talking about representation of the genre (whatever we mean by "genre" here), a TTRPG is not really about one-off expert-vs-novice-vs-amateur gameplay. It's about repeated tests, actions, challenges, etc. The PC with a high ability score and proficiency with a skill is going to succeed at that skill more often, over the length of the campaign, compared to the PC with lower ability and no proficiency. Even without the DM invoking any gatekeeping. Add in the DM occasionally using proficiency as a threshold (which, once again, is perfectly within the RAW and not some kind of houserule bandaid), and that skilled PC will shine.

I've played a game where both proficient and non-proficient PCs had to complete a task, and both made their rolls, but the DM played the NPCs as being much more impressed with the proficient PC's results. This led to the proficient PC becoming kind of the go-to person for that kind of task among the NPCs, which in turn flavored the way the NPCs reacted to the party as a whole. That kind of thing isn't cleanly represented by any mechanic but it certainly generates results that affect the game.


Hirelings. They carry loot and torches for you. They're a bit out of vogue these days but "bounded accuracy" on perception/investigation checks makes them extremely powerful.

Right, but perception isn't the kind of specialized skill that we're talking about here. Most hirelings wouldn't be proficient in arcana, for example, so it's reasonable that the DM wouldn't make checks for them to see if any of them could decipher those glyphs carved into the wall. And like I said, if you did have a group of hirelings all or mostly all proficient in arcana, you got some kind of specialized set of people (who all worked at a mage stronghold, maybe?) and in that case it makes sense that their combined brainpower and experience could provide an answer that a PC wizard might not get.

One example that comes to mind is Gandalf trying to remember how to get into Moria, and Frodo prompting him with the word for "friend." But in 5e terms, Frodo clearly just did the "help" action that gave Gandalf advantage the next time he made a history check. It wasn't like Frodo, Peppin, Merry, Gimli, Legolas, Aragon, and Boromir all made rolls and somehow "beat" Gandalf. They would never get past that door on their own.

Quertus
2021-01-16, 12:19 PM
On Reframing: OK I think I am just going to throw out the old framing of my point and try to get the idea that systems should be easy & fast (relative to the other goals of the system/campaign). So to start, does that make sense on its own? If not, what do you think is unclear/what questions do you have?

The problem is the way it contradicts your other argument, including "The d20 system tells me that I succeeded, but provided no help to the GM on what succeeding in this social set-up move actually meant.". Rolling d20+ bonus vs target number is fast and easy, but doesn't give you what you want.

Happily, IMO, it doesn't actually *get in the way* of producing rules for what you want: for example, you could just implement a dynamic DC now, of

5 - Chloe wrings her hands.

10 - Chloe wrings her hands as she tells you that the man is asleep, and she doesn't know what to do.

15 - Chloe wrings her hands as she tells you that the man is asleep because she drugged the nearby lake with a sleeping potion, and she doesn't know what to do.

20 - Chloe wrings her hands as she tells you that the man (and also that deer over there) is asleep because she drugged the nearby lake with a sleeping potion, and she doesn't know what to do. If you can wake him, she promises to pour the antidote into the lake.


Right, but perception isn't the kind of specialized skill that we're talking about here.

Actually, if you look back, I was originally talking about "persuasion", which, as most any 5-year-old can attempt it (some even successfully), hardly seems a "specialized skill".

My original argument was, getting 40 random unskilled people to make an argument is, on average, in 5e, more convincing than the most talented speaker alive.

Same with perception: keeping dozens of inattentive bannerman, porters, and torchbearers generally produces better results than having an eagle-eyed PC.

EDIT: and putting 40 average programmers on a task? That *definitely* won't produce code up to my quality standards, so I can definitively state from a position of experience that modeling programming represents an epic failure of Bounded Accuracy to model reality.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-16, 12:55 PM
Actually, if you look back, I was originally talking about "persuasion", which, as most any 5-year-old can attempt it (some even successfully), hardly seems a "specialized skill".

My original argument was, getting 40 random unskilled people to make an argument is, on average, in 5e, more convincing than the most talented speaker alive.



Except that that assumes something that the actual rules (more than just the strawman context-free theory that people spout) forbid (or at least strongly warn against). Giving multiple bites at the apple without consequences. For Charisma checks in particular (of which Charisma (Persuasion) is an example), that's explicitly stated: to quote from the DMG (page 245):


Once a Charisma check has been made, further attempts to influence the target of the interaction might be fruitless or run the risk of upsetting or angering the subject creature, potentially shifting its attitude toward hostility. Use your best judgement.

The rest of the quote mentions that you might (at the DM's discretion) be able to avoid hostility by clever roleplay and a good check. But that doesn't get you another bite, all it does is mitigate your previous failure. The conversation is over, one way or another.

Earlier, it states:


Aiding the Check. Other characters who make substantial contributions to the conversation can help the character making the check. If a helping character says or does something that would influence the interaction in a positive way, the character making the Charisma check can do so with advantage. [and in reverse, imposing disadvantage if they say something bad].

So at most, having 40 people try to convince someone means you get advantage. Which does not stack. But you're also just as likely to impose disadvantage.

EggKookoo
2021-01-16, 01:46 PM
The rest of the quote mentions that you might (at the DM's discretion) be able to avoid hostility by clever roleplay and a good check. But that doesn't get you another bite, all it does is mitigate your previous failure. The conversation is over, one way or another.

Or if you're sticking with actual checks, the DC could ratchet up with each failure. Throw your 40 guys at it and suddenly the DC is 40. In the end it means the same thing, just different ways of playing it out.

This also connects to the idea that checks should only be invoked if there's a meaningful consequence of failure.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-16, 04:17 PM
This also connects to the idea that checks should only be invoked if there's a meaningful consequence of failure.

This idea alone solves the entire problem in my experience. If it's a scenario where 40 different people can all attempt the check and one of them passing is enough to pass the challenge...you shouldn't have had anyone roll at all. There was no challenge there. Same actually goes for any such "one success to rule them all" check.

Options in my mind (and according to the DMG) are:

* One person makes the check, at advantage if any other person can meaningfully help.
* The entire group makes the check, and if 50% pass, they all pass. In this scenario, 40 dunderheads is an active disadvantage.
* Everyone makes the check in parallel but there are consequences for individual failure. This is how surprise works--everyone's passive perception is checked against the lowest Dexterity (Stealth) result[1], and those that fail get surprised. Note--this means that 40 at +0 are at a serious disadvantage compared to 3 at +2. Because all it takes is the lowest Stealth check being 11, and the entire group of 40 are surprised and none of the +2s are surprised.

Checks represent the outcome of all the random variables, not an individual try. Failure generally should mean that that avenue is closed off and you'll need a different path forward, a change of approach at minimum.

With perception, generally, there are two cases--
1. everyone's searching a fixed area for something. Here, more eyes are better, hands down, as long as they don't get in each other's way. But generally, searching long enough guarantees success eventually if it's findable in the first place. So meh.
2. Vs stealth. Here, more at lower scores don't do you any good, as surprise is an individual thing.

"Can I roll it too?" is a common trap, but a nasty one.

[1] If a character perceives any threat, they are not surprised. So only the lowest Dexterity (Stealth) check really matters for adjudicating surprise.

kyoryu
2021-01-16, 09:24 PM
I'm a big fan of "the appropriate person rolls, assisted by others."

This can be the highest skilled person (can we accomplish a task?) or the lowest skilled person (will any of us fail?)

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-17, 12:25 AM
I'm a big fan of "the appropriate person rolls, assisted by others."

This can be the highest skilled person (can we accomplish a task?) or the lowest skilled person (will any of us fail?)

Yeah. Or narratively making it so that what happens is that the less knowledgeable person who makes the check actually says something or asks a question that sparks the right answer on the one with the skill. Basically "have we tried saying 'friend' in elvish?", Leading to gandalf slapping his forehead and going "duh, oops, of course it's that easy."

Cluedrew
2021-01-17, 10:29 AM
The problem is the way it contradicts your other argument, including "The d20 system tells me that I succeeded, but provided no help to the GM on what succeeding in this social set-up move actually meant.". Rolling d20+ bonus vs target number is fast and easy, but doesn't give you what you want.No it doesn't because "doesn't give you what you want". The short version is bridging that gap may not be easy or fast. The long version is everything is relative to what you are trying to do. It will always take more energy to walk a further distance but regardless of the distance you are traveling taking a rocky path that is hard to traverse is going to be harder.* The d20 system here was a clean path part of the way (up to determining my chance of success) but then left us to find our out trail the rest of the way. Does that make sense?

As a secondary point: simple is not easy. Free-form role-playing is the simplest type of role-playing with almost no rules (some people say no but there are a few informal ones about not taking control of other people's characters and that sort of thing) and instead using narration for everything. Simple right? But is it easy? Actually it isn't that hard in my experience, but it certainly isn't so much easier for not having any additional complications.

* Now if you are in it for the hike you might take that path anyways, which would metaphorically be the people who homebrew things for no real reason. {Whistles Innocently}


Happily, IMO, it doesn't actually *get in the way* of producing rules for what you want: for example, you could just implement a dynamic DC now, ofYou know why do people talk like getting rid of bad rules is so much harder than adding new rules? In fact I would say getting rid of bad rules is trivial while creating new rules is - in a sense - the entire challenge of system design. The only time removing a bad rule is hard is when you have to add a new rule in its place, either because of knock-on effects or

Consider the following modification to D&D (any edition with skills attached to stats, but I've played 5e most recently): Get rid of all combat rules. Add three new skills, a strength skill called attack, a dexterity skill called maneuver and a constitution skill called defend.

I am now no longer sure if I was going to make a point about how overly complex combat rules are or how under developed the skill system is. I could probably make both arguments actually. But really the point is that it is pretty easy to do. I'm not going to claim the new rules I came up with in a few seconds are great but it did only take me a few seconds.

ImNotTrevor
2021-01-17, 10:59 AM
The problem is the way it contradicts your other argument, including "The d20 system tells me that I succeeded, but provided no help to the GM on what succeeding in this social set-up move actually meant.". Rolling d20+ bonus vs target number is fast and easy, but doesn't give you what you want.

Happily, IMO, it doesn't actually *get in the way* of producing rules for what you want: for example, you could just implement a dynamic DC now, of

5 - Chloe wrings her hands.

10 - Chloe wrings her hands as she tells you that the man is asleep, and she doesn't know what to do.

15 - Chloe wrings her hands as she tells you that the man is asleep because she drugged the nearby lake with a sleeping potion, and she doesn't know what to do.

20 - Chloe wrings her hands as she tells you that the man (and also that deer over there) is asleep because she drugged the nearby lake with a sleeping potion, and she doesn't know what to do. If you can wake him, she promises to pour the antidote into the lake.


The problem here is that this setup *kind of* shows wha Cluedrew is talking about.

So you've spent this time on how Chloe reacts at various DCs to the PC's persuading her for info.

Now do how she responds at each level for being threatened.

Now do the other 40 NPCs in town that might get grilled for info and might know something.

Yes, you can handwave it to "none of them know anything." But that becomes boring. You could also handwave it to all of them saying "I saw Chloe acting oddly." But then you've not really made a living, breathing community but rather a gaggle of talkative neon signs that point to Chloe.

But with a system that is built from the ground up to support this kind of interaction and to make these sorts of things interesting *even when not planned in detail as above,* you can get a lot of outcomes without needing to plan out multiple DCs.

AW, because it's a good example of this, has a variety of broad-idea things that can happen as a result of a partial-success on both Going Aggro (intimidation, kinda) and Seduce/Manipulate (Persuasion, kinda)

Taking Going Aggro as a launching point, here's the kinds of things that can happen at a baseline.(Assuming the individual is not part of a Threat, which expands things.) On a 10+, they either cave in to the threat, or they take the consequences of your threat. (This means that Going Aggro specifically means you are not bluffing, and you will indeed chop their fat little fingers off if they don't talk.) On a 7-9, they *might* cave and do what you want... or they might fight back, tell you what they think you want to hear (whether that's true or not), call for help, or use a Threat Move. On a miss, they 100% don't give you what you want, and don't take your threat seriously.

On a Seduce/Manipulate,
On a 10+ they do what you want.
On a 7-9, they need concrete assurance before they do anything to help you, and they likely won't do *everything* you want, if there's room for such.
On a miss, they don't help you and the MC makes as hard a move as they want.

It's hard to express how much branching off there is without just copy/pasting the MC moves and Threat Moves, which are pretty readily available if you google them.

Quertus
2021-01-17, 07:10 PM
No it doesn't because "doesn't give you what you want". The short version is bridging that gap may not be easy or fast. The long version is everything is relative to what you are trying to do. It will always take more energy to walk a further distance but regardless of the distance you are traveling taking a rocky path that is hard to traverse is going to be harder.* The d20 system here was a clean path part of the way (up to determining my chance of success) but then left us to find our out trail the rest of the way. Does that make sense?

As a secondary point: simple is not easy. Free-form role-playing is the simplest type of role-playing with almost no rules (some people say no but there are a few informal ones about not taking control of other people's characters and that sort of thing) and instead using narration for everything. Simple right? But is it easy? Actually it isn't that hard in my experience, but it certainly isn't so much easier for not having any additional complications.

* Now if you are in it for the hike you might take that path anyways, which would metaphorically be the people who homebrew things for no real reason. {Whistles Innocently}

You know why do people talk like getting rid of bad rules is so much harder than adding new rules? In fact I would say getting rid of bad rules is trivial while creating new rules is - in a sense - the entire challenge of system design. The only time removing a bad rule is hard is when you have to add a new rule in its place, either because of knock-on effects or

Consider the following modification to D&D (any edition with skills attached to stats, but I've played 5e most recently): Get rid of all combat rules. Add three new skills, a strength skill called attack, a dexterity skill called maneuver and a constitution skill called defend.

I am now no longer sure if I was going to make a point about how overly complex combat rules are or how under developed the skill system is. I could probably make both arguments actually. But really the point is that it is pretty easy to do. I'm not going to claim the new rules I came up with in a few seconds are great but it did only take me a few seconds.


The problem here is that this setup *kind of* shows wha Cluedrew is talking about.

So you've spent this time on how Chloe reacts at various DCs to the PC's persuading her for info.

Now do how she responds at each level for being threatened.

Now do the other 40 NPCs in town that might get grilled for info and might know something.

Yes, you can handwave it to "none of them know anything." But that becomes boring. You could also handwave it to all of them saying "I saw Chloe acting oddly." But then you've not really made a living, breathing community but rather a gaggle of talkative neon signs that point to Chloe.

But with a system that is built from the ground up to support this kind of interaction and to make these sorts of things interesting *even when not planned in detail as above,* you can get a lot of outcomes without needing to plan out multiple DCs.

AW, because it's a good example of this, has a variety of broad-idea things that can happen as a result of a partial-success on both Going Aggro (intimidation, kinda) and Seduce/Manipulate (Persuasion, kinda)

Taking Going Aggro as a launching point, here's the kinds of things that can happen at a baseline.(Assuming the individual is not part of a Threat, which expands things.) On a 10+, they either cave in to the threat, or they take the consequences of your threat. (This means that Going Aggro specifically means you are not bluffing, and you will indeed chop their fat little fingers off if they don't talk.) On a 7-9, they *might* cave and do what you want... or they might fight back, tell you what they think you want to hear (whether that's true or not), call for help, or use a Threat Move. On a miss, they 100% don't give you what you want, and don't take your threat seriously.

On a Seduce/Manipulate,
On a 10+ they do what you want.
On a 7-9, they need concrete assurance before they do anything to help you, and they likely won't do *everything* you want, if there's room for such.
On a miss, they don't help you and the MC makes as hard a move as they want.

It's hard to express how much branching off there is without just copy/pasting the MC moves and Threat Moves, which are pretty readily available if you google them.

You come home to find a video call with me with a gun to your friend's / family member's head. "Tell me what I want to know."

On a 10+, you either tell me the truth, *or* I blow their head off, because I cannot be bluffing if I'm using this move (and I cannot blow their head off anyway after you answer?)

On a 7-9, you take whatever action you want, including telling me the truth or letting me blow their head off, but also possibly lying to me (which there's no rules to adjudicate?), or calling the cops (at which point, I blow their head off, because I wasn't bluffing?).

On a 6-, you respond, "yeah, right" (and I blow their head off, because I wasn't bluffing?)

This… sounds *worse* than having no rules.

----

I agree that hard coding all those DCs, not just for Chloe but for every NPC for every possible social action would be… painful.

Using 5e as a base… using 3e as a base… nah, I continue to believe that human social interaction is too complex, and so I can't say "I would". Instead, I can say… hmmm… one might create a set of DCs, based on the target's "disposition" (3e has fanatic/friendly/…/hostile), indicating the *type* of response that they would give. This would be horrifically oversimplified, and I would find it to "get in my way", but I can see many being pleased with the "good enough" structure that it gives.

-----

I find "removing a rule" much more difficult than "making a ruling".

I've told you that we're playing Monopoly. You roll, land on a space, and find it blank. I rule that it's "Yahtzee", and write up the rules. Alternately, you land on "Atlantic", and I say no, declare it "Yahtzee", and write up the rules.

I find the former more likely to be accepted than the latter.

-----

Thus, I find "the system has rules for this, but they're bad rules" is one example of the system getting in the way, making it harder to make good rules than simply adjudicating a more freeform game.

Other examples of what I would consider a rocky path would be… hmmm… oh, I know, I'll pick on alignment: the system having unrelated "role-playing" mechanics where people respond with, "but an 'alignment X' character would never <otherwise reasonable result, like 'work with someone from another team' or 'accept an order to not commit suicide'>".

Also, too many people jump to removing a rule before realizing why it was there (see my favorite example, "low magic D&D", and all the horror stories that removing wealth while ignorant of its purpose has caused).

-----

Still, it's nice if the system has *good* rules for things that are common and *can* have good rules (like, say, grappling).

-----

Easy / fast? I'll do you one better (why is Gamora): sensei always used to say, martial arts are simple, but that doesn't make them easy.

Not sure if that's the same sentiment as you were going for or not.

-----

Posting from phone, these responses are in roughly reverse order of the corresponding text.

Anything big I missed responding to?

Tanarii
2021-01-17, 07:28 PM
Thus, I find "the system has rules for this, but they're bad rules" is one example of the system getting in the way, making it harder to make good rules than simply adjudicating a more freeform game.

Which in 5e it tends to be the resting rules. And sometimes the initiative rules.

In 3e it was the stealth rules.

In 4e it was the skill challenge rules and the reliance on battle mats.

Or every D&D except 4e, Vancian / spell slot casting.

All of these things work great if they were used as intended. The problem is that the designers made assumptions about what kind of game it should be, why these rules were designed the way they were, and then failed to explain it properly, or they explained it and people didn't listen.

E.g. Heinsoo and his mechanical/fluff separation being somehow narrative, which I personally find to be the exact opposite, causing his Skill Challenges to be treated like a dice rolling mini game. Or Mearls talking about "story" out one side (and in the PHB) while creating a system carefully optimized for very specific kinds of dungeon delving and wilderness adventuring sites games.

Cluedrew
2021-01-17, 10:12 PM
I find [making a ruling] more likely to be accepted than [removing rules].The thing is we don't have a fiction layer in board games to tell us what makes sense or not and when a rule gives you a non-sensical result that is when people tend to remove (or override) rules during play. Also timing is important, for instance I would tell people I made D&D skill based before I started a campaign where I ripped out the combat system.

Also accepted or not from your example I have enough information to erase the Atlantic space but not enough to fill in the Yahtzee space.

Telok
2021-01-17, 10:49 PM
The thing is we don't have a fiction layer in board games to tell us what makes sense or not and when a rule gives you a non-sensical result that is when people tend to remove (or override) rules during play.

Clue, Life, Monopoly.

Although Monopoly is interesting in that it wasn't designed to be a fun game, but to be a teaching game about uncontrolled capitalism. Seriously, what would you expect from a game named after an anti-competitive business model? People keep trying to add or change rules to make it "fun" without understanding the purpose and design principals behind it.

Lord Raziere
2021-01-17, 11:35 PM
Clue, Life, Monopoly.

Although Monopoly is interesting in that it wasn't designed to be a fun game, but to be a teaching game about uncontrolled capitalism. Seriously, what would you expect from a game named after an anti-competitive business model? People keep trying to add or change rules to make it "fun" without understanding the purpose and design principals behind it.

Thats because it falls into the trap that every piece of media designed to be artistic criticism/deconstruction of something does: people consume something because they think it should be fun and so if they hear something is popular or good quality that means it must be fun because why else would so many people praise it, therefore when they found out that its not and don't know the original purpose they try to fix it, not knowing that it was doing what it was intended to do.

and then when they find out the actual purpose they then instead of having humility to accept that what they want isn't everything and that they didn't check what it was supposed to be about so its on them that they didn't get the point, they decide that its somehow the creators fault for not making it something tailored to a desire that probably only came about after it was already made. this would all be prevented if people actually checked things but nooo.....

Telok
2021-01-18, 01:30 AM
. this would all be prevented if people actually checked things but nooo.....

It would also help if the advertising wasn't sort of deceptive. Of course if you stopped advertising Monopoly as a "fun for the family" game and called it a "learning about capital movement in unregulated markets" game then sales would drop faster than the axe on the ad exec's neck for doing it.

People believe advertising, that's why companies spend money on them. If you put multimillion ad campaign with a movie tie-in out for Pendragon then it's sales would perk up quite a bit. Even though Pendragon is very tightly tied to one specific version of the Arthurian myth & knight in shining armor trope, and doesn't do other versions very well (and generic Medieval is pretty much right out). It almost certainly wouldn't work well for whatever movie it got tied to, and gods help you if it was a Game of Thrones movie. Same with D&D.

Satinavian
2021-01-18, 03:17 AM
Failure should have consequences and that means it should be possible that you just lose the adventure. There should not be always a new scenario to make the failure moot.

That is why i don't like world ending scenarios. Losing should be a real possibility but not something that needs changing the game world afterwards.



Other than that, i don't like the whole adventure hanging on a single roll. But the players should just avoid any plans where that is the case. It is their responsibility not the GMs.

Yora
2021-01-18, 07:23 AM
Which in 5e it tends to be the resting rules. And sometimes the initiative rules.

In 3e it was the stealth rules.

In 4e it was the skill challenge rules and the reliance on battle mats.

Or every D&D except 4e, Vancian / spell slot casting.

All of these things work great if they were used as intended. The problem is that the designers made assumptions about what kind of game it should be, why these rules were designed the way they were, and then failed to explain it properly, or they explained it and people didn't listen.

The problem with D&D in particular is that it wants to be a modern story focused game, but it also wants to keep the basic mechanics of a 40 year old dungeon crawling game. And I am not sure if the people who made 5th edition are even aware of this fundamental disconnect.

Quertus
2021-01-18, 08:16 AM
The thing is we don't have a fiction layer in board games to tell us what makes sense or not and when a rule gives you a non-sensical result that is when people tend to remove (or override) rules during play. Also timing is important, for instance I would tell people I made D&D skill based before I started a campaign where I ripped out the combat system.

True, I am envisioning the event occurring *during* the game; thus the "bait and switch" feel / objection to changing the rules. Also the "but my NPC / DMPC was supposed be cool - the rules have failed me, I'd better change the rules to not give such a nonsensical result".

I'm more of a "kick the GM to the curb (and tattoo a copy of the Sue files to the inside of their eyelids as necessary) if they cannot play by the agreed upon rules" type.

Real world physics gives nonsensical results, like the platypus, or <insert political or company policy "huh?!" of your choosing>. That's just the world we live in. If game physics gives the rare nonsensical result, it's not wrong, it's just the world that they live in. If it gives frequent nonsensical results, choose better rules.


Failure should have consequences and that means it should be possible that you just lose the adventure. There should not be always a new scenario to make the failure moot.

That is why i don't like world ending scenarios. Losing should be a real possibility but not something that needs changing the game world afterwards.



Other than that, i don't like the whole adventure hanging on a single roll. But the players should just avoid any plans where that is the case. It is their responsibility not the GMs.

I mean, Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, has saved over 100 worlds, so… yeah, I've kinda played that plenty.

What I *do* like, though, are world changing adventurers - characters with the proactive drive to change the world (overthrowing the gods being my primary example). Succeeding should be a real possibility, and something that needs changing the game world afterwards.

Tanarii
2021-01-18, 09:35 AM
The problem with D&D in particular is that it wants to be a modern story focused game, but it also wants to keep the basic mechanics of a 40 year old dungeon crawling game. And I am not sure if the people who made 5th edition are even aware of this fundamental disconnect.
I mean, that's been a problem for D&D since TSR and 2e.

For that matter, the entire idea that TTRPGs should be "a modern story focused games" is a fundamental problem in the mind of any developer. :smallamused:

Also it's probably worth it's own thread, but why do so many developers who want their games to be story focused churn out the most mechanically focused rules? White Wolf is infamous for it of course, but Crane and Heinsoo both think that way too. At least Mearls (theoretically) tried to pare it back.

Lord Raziere
2021-01-18, 04:56 PM
I mean, that's been a problem for D&D since TSR and 2e.

For that matter, the entire idea that TTRPGs should be "a modern story focused games" is a fundamental problem in the mind of any developer. :smallamused:

Also it's probably worth it's own thread, but why do so many developers who want their games to be story focused churn out the most mechanically focused rules? White Wolf is infamous for it of course, but Crane and Heinsoo both think that way too. At least Mearls (theoretically) tried to pare it back.

your only complaining about it because its changing something that already exists that you like. the problem is not that they are trying to making a modern story focused game, its that they're trying to change a preexisting game to be something else. I bet you none your complaints would be happening if they labeled the book something else that isn't DnD. It also probably wouldn't sell.

But then again fans complain about anything changing, so why would developers care about what fans complain about? if everything is a bad change to the fans, then there is no point to listening to fans.

Cluedrew
2021-01-18, 06:18 PM
Also it's probably worth it's own thread, but why do so many developers who want their games to be story focused churn out the most mechanically focused rules? White Wolf is infamous for it of course, but Crane and Heinsoo both think that way too. At least Mearls (theoretically) tried to pare it back.I think because a lot of people want story focused games but are still much more comfortable with the rules structures of old systems that in turn comes from war games. At least that is how it got started, the systems that actually are story focused (even if they aren't exactly rules light) manage to break away from that. I think a lot of big names stay that way to avoid taking risks (see D&D 4e) but otherwise I couldn't say.

Anyways I agree it worth its own thread so I will not say anything more about it in this one.

Quertus
2021-01-18, 06:39 PM
But then again fans complain about anything changing, so why would developers care about what fans complain about? if everything is a bad change to the fans, then there is no point to listening to fans.

Well, that seems a little… unfair.

Take me, for instance. I consider 2e D&D to be the best RPG I've played. When 3e came out, I gently complained about a few of the changes. But I also *liked* some of the changes.

Then 4e came out, and I declared it both "shades of grey" boring and "not even an RPG". Oh, and declared its rendition of Toril "the Forgotten Realms, for people who hate the Forgotten Realms".

I'm actively *for* the 5e change of removing the Wall of the Faithless, just as I would be for removing alignment. When did they remove alignment languages? Because I approve of that change, too.

So, I think that it's fair to say that not all fans oppose all changes, nor do they oppose them all equally.

I think that the inability to comprehend that distinction… well… show me someone who cannot make that distinction, and I'll show you someone who should not be involved with fan feedback, or in making decisions about products.

Lord Raziere
2021-01-18, 06:51 PM
Well, that seems a little… unfair.

Take me, for instance. I consider 2e D&D to be the best RPG I've played. When 3e came out, I gently complained about a few of the changes. But I also *liked* some of the changes.

Then 4e came out, and I declared it both "shades of grey" boring and "not even an RPG". Oh, and declared its rendition of Toril "the Forgotten Realms, for people who hate the Forgotten Realms".

I'm actively *for* the 5e change of removing the Wall of the Faithless, just as I would be for removing alignment. When did they remove alignment languages? Because I approve of that change, too.

So, I think that it's fair to say that not all fans oppose all changes, nor do they oppose them all equally.

I think that the inability to comprehend that distinction… well… show me someone who cannot make that distinction, and I'll show you someone who should not be involved with fan feedback, or in making decisions about products.

Well of course its unfair. your not the only one complaining, and they aren't checking everyone.

you may be reasonable, but not everyone is. your voice gets drowned out by those who aren't who complain louder and more directly, and every change you want is something someone else doesn't. they change for one section, a different section will complain instead. and given how many franchises are, I think its pretty clear that many companies can't make the distinction. they probably aren't checking this particular forum- they're checking whatever thing they set up to complain to them directly. unless your directly complaining to them, all your doing here is the cyberspace equivalent of griping at a cafe.

ImNotTrevor
2021-01-19, 08:03 AM
You come home to find a video call with me with a gun to your friend's / family member's head. "Tell me what I want to know."

On a 10+, you either tell me the truth, *or* I blow their head off, because I cannot be bluffing if I'm using this move (and I cannot blow their head off anyway after you answer?)

On a 7-9, you take whatever action you want, including telling me the truth or letting me blow their head off, but also possibly lying to me (which there's no rules to adjudicate?), or calling the cops (at which point, I blow their head off, because I wasn't bluffing?).

On a 6-, you respond, "yeah, right" (and I blow their head off, because I wasn't bluffing?)

This… sounds *worse* than having no rules.


Well yes, when you introduce video calls to the post-apocalypse and create artificial distance which fundamentally changes the interaction, then yeah, things break down. Apocalypse World assumes... the apocalypse happened. I somehow doubt that Zoom/Skype would be the thing to survive.

Hostage Situations are also not produceable and enactable in a single roll in AW. There would need to be several rolls before this one could happen, and that affects how THIS goes down.

But let's take this interaction and run through how I'd run it in ACTUAL Apocalypse World.

Let's say Domino (that's you) is in Dremmer's place, with his gun pointed at his girl, Bebop, finger on the trigger, waiting for Dremmer to get home. For the sake of giving me as much of the information I'd have at my disposal in an ACTUAL game as possible, let's say Domino is a Hardholder, and his right-hand man, Tums, is missing.

Dremmer gets home, and he's got a couple of his guys with him.

You Go Aggro. "Tell me what happened to Tums or I blow her brains out I swear to god, Dremmer."

I have you roll it.

10+, it makes the most sense for Dremmer to cave in and do what you want. (Which it will most of the time.) He says "Hey, hey, woah, calm down. I got nothin' to do with Tums, okay? He's not here, for God's sakes. I heard Tenpenny talking about getting a new prize, though. Way he was talking, it sounded like it could be Tum." (You got what you wanted)

7-9, I have some.options. I know Domino HATES Hut. So Dremmer says "Woah, woah, hold on. I don't know ANYTHING about Tums, but I know Hut's got plans going right now." After giving that info, I ask what you do. (You got... a version of what you wanted. A lead, which will indeed get you where you wanna go, but it's a more complicatex route than a 10+.

On a 6-, I have even more options. I get to make as hard a move as I want. So I do. I say, "Dremmer walks in, hands up, real slow. He asks Bebop if she's ok, then looks at you and smiles. It's the only warning you get. Bebop suddenly jerks to the side, falling to the floor. And while you're reacting to that, one of Dremmer's boys quick-draws a sawed-off and puts a blast of rock salt into your chest for 2 harm after your armor, and you hit the wall as your breath leaves your lungs. What do you do?" (You don't get what you want, and things get bad. Your threat isn't taken seriously and you get shot for your efforts.)

That's how it goes in ACTUAL play. If Dremmer is on my Threat map (he's got a name, so he is probably on my Threat Map) I can draw from his Threat Impulse and Threat moves for 7-9 and Miss to make sure his choice aligns with that.

Maybe he's the head of a Brute(Family) threat. Their impulse is "To close ranks and protect their own", so on the 7-9 Dremmer finishes out by letting Domino know that he and his friends are no longer welcome at Dremmer's establishment, and on a miss I might follow up my hard move with a softer move from Dremmer where he says "I don't care who you think you are, little 'mayor.' You don't threaten me and mine. Your power ends at my doorstep. Now crawl out of here before I have you gutted. Tums's probably happy to be out from under your heel." [Rigidly Follow or Defy Authority is a Brute move]
If Dremmer is a grotesque and you Miss, I could also have Dremmer and friends draw guns on you. And as you pull your trigger and redecorate his walls with brainmatter wallpaper, his unflinching look makes you realize that theirs was not the loving relationship it looked like. And before you can turn your gun on him, you reap the whirlwind.


Now, this is a VERY specific situation that you'd not just... be able to make happen without a lot of work and several rolls to even get into this position, so this is STILL a very unusual Go Aggro, and one I'd maybe not even have you roll for if I don't think Dremmer would do anything other than cave to pressure and you already jumped through my hoops to make this scene possible.

Typically, when you Go Aggro, it's a shorter, one-off interaction. You'd not be taking the time to manufacture a hostage situation, you'd just find Dremmer and put a gun in his face. But if you did put in the work, that's great, and I can roll with it.

The biggest takeaway is that D&D rolls can, amd often do, exist in a vacuum.

AW rolls almost never exist in a vacuum, because they rely HEAVILY upon the fictional context of both the current scene and preceding scenes to establish the stakes and the likely outcomes.

kyoryu
2021-01-19, 10:32 AM
AW rolls almost never exist in a vacuum, because they rely HEAVILY upon the fictional context of both the current scene and preceding scenes to establish the stakes and the likely outcomes.

Arguably, this is the defining feature of "narrative" games (in quotes to specify common usage vs. Forge terminology). I'm more heavily involved in the Fate community, and it's a common pattern that the answer to any "how do I?" question is "well, that depends...."

And for this to work, it requires a certain amount of GM interpretation and flexibility.

(The other interesting thing about said narrative games as the results of rules is more often constraints than actual things. And while the constraints give the GM (and often players) a high amount of leeway, they are also generally expected to be strictly adhered to. So they tend to be both very free and very rigid at the same time).

ImNotTrevor
2021-01-20, 02:09 AM
Arguably, this is the defining feature of "narrative" games (in quotes to specify common usage vs. Forge terminology). I'm more heavily involved in the Fate community, and it's a common pattern that the answer to any "how do I?" question is "well, that depends...."

And for this to work, it requires a certain amount of GM interpretation and flexibility.

(The other interesting thing about said narrative games as the results of rules is more often constraints than actual things. And while the constraints give the GM (and often players) a high amount of leeway, they are also generally expected to be strictly adhered to. So they tend to be both very free and very rigid at the same time).

This, I'm realizing, is why I always find it hard to explain how these systems work in a way that feels adequate.

Explaining D&D as "you roll for things to find out if they happen" is an oversimplified but valid explanation of how it works.

That same description doesn't really cover it for Apocalypse World, and other games that dig into what it digs into.

Apocalypse World isn't great for roleplay because it has the most amazing resolution mechanic for social interaction EVAR, but because everything you've done so far weighs in on this roll. Not just what you've done in this scene, either. Elements from session 1 can affect a social roll in session 9, and the system gives you ways and means to keep up those kinds of connections over time.

Now, I like exploring relationships and having the freedom to really dig into the WEIRD aspects. Those are fun as heck to me. But I'd still not recommend AW to everyone. I usually use it as an introductory system, then check in after a few sessions to see who wants more structure, and who wants less, and shake it out from there. It's a good entry point for people coming into tabletop from unusual angles, and the fact that it ISN'T D&D can shake up their expectations quite nicely.