at 20:44 - what do you think of players establishing facts about the world impromptu during play? Players, do you feel happy & confident doing this? GMs, do you enjoy this or dislike it?
As a GM I love it when players do it well, and dread it when players do it badly. So as a player I do it a bit more than most, but feel very wary of stepping on GM's toes.
Quote from: S'mon on May 01, 2021, 07:20:42 AMwhat do you think of players establishing facts about the world impromptu during play?
Players already have an inflated sense of their importance. I welcome player input into my game world about as much as George RR Martin welcomes people's input on his diet.
As always, it depends on the situation and the input.
My rule of thumb is that if it's something the players run past me to see if it works, I'll at least look at it. I'm not so in love with my own farts that I'm resistant to outside input.
Dropping something in my lap in mid-session is not a good way to do this, though.
While not to get too auter-y, I feel that the GM is responsible for the creative vision of the world. The GM should absolutely take player input, but filter, process, and adapt it so that it fits the world as a whole. When the group is in synch, little of this is needed, but the GM still needs to be the one in control.
I personally prefer the leading question model, where the players ask questions about the world and get individual answers, which can chain together to the fact they are trying to establish.
Haven't have the chance the watch the video yet, but...
I once ran a short, impromptu campaign that started out randomly without any preparation*, so we basically improvised the entire world collaboratively going off different people's character concepts and backgrounds to make them fit the world. And it turned out pretty well overall. It took the weight away from me of having to come up with everything out of the blue when we didn't even have a clue what we were gonna play, and it helped us integrate different elements of the world that were necessary for everyone's character concepts to make sense. Someone wanted an African-looking character, so we added an Africa stand-in area to the south. A couple people were playing traditional elves, so we added a huge forest with the dominant elven city to the north, etc. Going through each character then filling in the blanks in between with stuff that randomly occurred to me to make it all fit together.
I would definitely do it again (if I don't have anything specific in mind), as it was a good dynamic that helped players become invested in the world and helped me come up with stuff when drawing a blank and playing randomly out of the blue.
However, ALL of this happened BEFORE play. We established this as everyone was creating their characters and I was trying to come up with an adventure idea in the background, taking notes and stuff. But once play started, the world was set (for the most part) and we went along with whatever was established. Nobody tried to provide additional input during play and I'm not sure I would accept it. I don't like the idea of players inserting random shit into the game world. Doing it collaboratively before hand is a different deal because we're all still trying to establish what the world is about. We could even discuss further stuff after play to continue fleshing out the world. But inserting stuff in the middle of play just seems so "Oh, so random!"
*I basically got a call one day after years of not playing from a friend who wanted to play and introduce his daughters to the hobby, and also had found a bunch of extra people to join.
I'm happy for players to make suggestions anytime they want, including during play. Those will never be incorporated during the current session and are unlikely to see the light of day in the next several sessions or even the current campaign. I do maintain a list of such suggestions. They often inform the next campaign that we do.
But no, the players do not establish any facts about the world in play while it is in play. Player suggestions have often been incorporated into a world when it was first being set up.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 01, 2021, 08:44:24 AM
As always, it depends on the situation and the input.
My rule of thumb is that if it's something the players run past me to see if it works, I'll at least look at it. I'm not so in love with my own farts that I'm resistant to outside input.
Dropping something in my lap in mid-session is not a good way to do this, though.
;D Concur. Completely and unreservedly.
I think to varying degrees this has always been done. Plenty of times I've heard players speculating on what is to come next, and if one player articulates something particularly horrible another player might say, "Shhh! Don't give the GM any ideas!" I've also at times advised players of certain "Jedi mind tricks" that tend to work on GMs. Like letting the GM in on the intent along with describing the action your character is taking. This tends to cause the GM to evaluate whether or not what you hope to accomplish is reasonable, as opposed to whether or not it is the most reasonable outcome, and that makes you more likely to get your way. If the outcome is dependent upon details the GM hasn't previously considered, there's a good chance your OOC input will have a strong influence on the world itself.
Now I know this is anathema to some gamers who live and die by strict definitions of their own precious playstyles. I just think for the most part we're fooling ourselves to think these things don't happen, and in fact it would take extraordinary conscious effort to ensure that it doesn't.
Quote from: S'mon on May 01, 2021, 07:20:42 AM
What do you think of players establishing facts about the world impromptu during play? Players, do you feel happy & confident doing this? GMs, do you enjoy this or dislike it?
As a GM I love it when players do it well, and dread it when players do it badly. So as a player I do it a bit more than most, but feel very wary of stepping on GM's toes.
I like it especially for establishing the PC as an authority in their field -- whether a professional field, or a personal field like what their family or hometown are like. In places where the PC should already know all the details, I think it helps if the player is allowed to establish facts. The GM can and should set limits on this, but without some authority, the PC comes across as incompetent or ignorant about their own subject.
As long as they run it by me and it fits with what I've generally established about the world. Other than that, fuck no, I'm a jealous god.
When I'm running an open campaign, and it's expressly impromptu, I don't have a problem letting my players come up with details as long as they fit into the broader form that I have given the world. As an example, I've said that the Dwarves have a kingdom in those mountains over there, and they send caravans to trade with the city that's here. One of the characters is playing a dwarf, and says, "I bet one of the guards for the caravan is a clansman -- we're the main warrior clan of the kingdom." I respond, "Sure. Your cousin Ordan is surprised to see you here in town...." and the conversation goes from there. I hadn't previously established that the Dwarven kingdom was organized in clans that specialized in certain duties, but I hadn't yet established that they weren't, so I let it stand as a cool detail and work with it.
Quote from: Lunamancer on May 01, 2021, 02:22:32 PM... in fact it would take extraordinary conscious effort to ensure that it doesn't.
Conscious effort, yes. Nothing extraordinary about it, except perhaps some people wouldn't bother. Some little minor thing that doesn't matter at all? Sure, no reason to waste any effort on that--because it doesn't matter.
I'm always running a game with multiple mysteries, often intertwined. There are a lot of details and casual relationships that matter--and nothing that a player says in play is going to change one of them one iota.
I have had a player suggest something to another player about what was going on that I liked a lot. Maybe even a little better than what I was doing. That invariably gets used in a later, unrelated adventure or campaign. Those kind of ideas don't grow on trees.
Great, Gaming advice from at least one person who barely seems to even grasp RPGs except to look down his nose on them.
As for players interjecting details. Like others here I work with it if it makes sense and does not contradict anything established.
But Im more used to players asking if such and such is a feature and then working with it or not if it fits. I've never had a player actually try to ursurp control of the setting and dictate whats there.
"Im going to go look for the towns inn and see if we can get rooms for the night" is perfectly fine with me long as I havent for whatever reason stated before hand none exist in a town.
"Are the dwarves on bad terms with the halflings to the south" Im also perfectly fin with working with for the same reasons.
"The Kink has declared all gnomes outlawed from the land!" is probably a flat "Sorry. No." and explanation why and also an explanation why making a statement like that is not really the perview if the player. And suggest how to better frame that as a question or suggestion.
It depends how world altering it is and whether I've already thought of what they're think of and if the players idea is better than mine.
For example
Dwarven cuisine consists largely of spicing and seasoning food so that you can't taste what you are actually eating, this persisted even after more varied foodstuffs became available.
Is fine.
The dwarves are locked in a war of extermination with the elves.
Is not fine.
I'm happy for the players to add detail and fill in any of the blanks I haven't, why should the DM do all of the heavy lifting with worldbuilding?
Quote from: S'mon on May 01, 2021, 07:20:42 AM
at 20:44 - what do you think of players establishing facts about the world impromptu during play? Players, do you feel happy & confident doing this? GMs, do you enjoy this or dislike it?
As a GM I love it when players do it well, and dread it when players do it badly. So as a player I do it a bit more than most, but feel very wary of stepping on GM's toes.
A lot depends on the Player and their input. As GM, I welcome Player suggestions but reserve the right to not entertain their suggestion in that particular game or that particular campaign.
Some Players are just thuddingly uncreative, or don't understand the specific "tone" I want for a campaign, and then there are the ones who just want whatever the latest media hotness is in the campaign no matter how much it wouldn't fit. The ones who do come up with some great ideas are worth their weight in gold to me, but may not stick around.
I used to let Players come up with their own backgrounds for their characters as long as it was no more than a page long, but I found that I had to edit them before integrating them into the setting or else every character would be the son or daughter of the Supreme Galactic Overlord and own a planet (which can make adventuring a losing proposition).
Does this also include players injecting canon facts from previously unknown sources? I've seen this happen a lot in Star Wars games, but also in WH40K RPGs and even L5R. Sometimes it's interesting or adds to a scene, but sometimes it's intrusive.
Quote from: S'mon on May 01, 2021, 07:20:42 AM...what do you think of players establishing facts about the world impromptu during play? Players, do you feel happy & confident doing this? GMs, do you enjoy this or dislike it?
As a GM I love it when players do it well, and dread it when players do it badly. So as a player I do it a bit more than most, but feel very wary of stepping on GM's toes.
No, no, no, no NO!
Players can
suggest elements of their back stories that might influence their characters, but always before the campaign and always subject to GM approval. They can also suggest connections between previously established elements ("We talked about how my family was a local power broker. Has this guy heard of them? Would he want to avoid crossing them?"). But no one is going to assert "facts" about the world at my table... at least not twice...
Not my tempo.
The players have enough to worry about. If it is something clearly within the nexus of their character, great. I don't need them making up wars, conflicts between NPCs, or using flashback mechanics to change some aspect of the world.
Want there to be a war? Figure out how to start one. Conflicts between NPCs? Tell the sheriff that the shopkeep is plowing his daughter.
I almost never care, just do not be lazy about it.
PCs in-game can say whatever they wish about the environment; they may or may not be correct. Plenty of people are wrong about all sorts of stuff. Players dictating the TRUTH, nope, that's my job. I have, however, asked players to fill in the gaps for me for things that aren't really that important and I didn't particularly care. For instance, bard rolls a knowledge check about the details of some minor magic item. If he wants to come up with the activation words and backstory, fine with me. It might not even be true but since it doesn't matter to the game, whatever. Sometimes I will directly ask for how something looks or operates because, again, it doesn't matter that much and speeds the game along.
Otherwise, if I'm responsible for running a game, my one benefit is being solely responsible for the world. All this "collaborative effort" bullshit is usually promoted by people who are too lazy to actually run a game and too uncreative to write a novel.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 02, 2021, 03:40:52 PM
Does this also include players injecting canon facts from previously unknown sources? I've seen this happen a lot in Star Wars games, but also in WH40K RPGs and even L5R. Sometimes it's interesting or adds to a scene, but sometimes it's intrusive.
That reminds me:
I was running a Traveller game back in the day, and one of the PC's (the player was a collector of all things Traveller) asked a Droyne how Grandfather was doing. Needless to say, I was a bit upset by that, considering I hadn't even thought about adding Ancients to the campaign (the pitch was low-level down-on-their-luck tramp spacers rather than any kind of core-worlds treasure hunting nonsense).
Quote from: S'mon on May 01, 2021, 07:20:42 AM
what do you think of players establishing facts about the world impromptu during play? Players, do you feel happy & confident doing this? GMs, do you enjoy this or dislike it?
As a GM I love it when players do it well, and dread it when players do it badly. So as a player I do it a bit more than most, but feel very wary of stepping on GM's toes.
yes, yes, yes, YES!
Especially if I am running an AP or module. Or if I am running an homebrew campaign. Certain elements are set in stone, otherwise always room for player input nor fear such input of any kind. Mind you to a certain extent and within reason. I rather the players be engaged at my tables.
Quote from: ScytheSong on May 02, 2021, 08:25:33 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 02, 2021, 03:40:52 PM
Does this also include players injecting canon facts from previously unknown sources? I've seen this happen a lot in Star Wars games, but also in WH40K RPGs and even L5R. Sometimes it's interesting or adds to a scene, but sometimes it's intrusive.
That reminds me:
I was running a Traveller game back in the day, and one of the PC's (the player was a collector of all things Traveller) asked a Droyne how Grandfather was doing. Needless to say, I was a bit upset by that, considering I hadn't even thought about adding Ancients to the campaign (the pitch was low-level down-on-their-luck tramp spacers rather than any kind of core-worlds treasure hunting nonsense).
Sadly, there are canonistas in Traveller who aren't as interested in playing the game as they are in showing off their encyclopedic knowledge of Traveller trivia. Personally, I would have been very tempted to just kick the bum out.
if it's not a world-breaking tidbit and it's based on inferences from what information I've given them, why not? I can add the information and use it for good or ill.
Sometimes they don't even realize they're doing it (much to their sorrow when things gang agley).
A guy on EN World made the distinction that there is a line between "stuff PC should know" and "stuff PC wouldn't know". So eg a PC talking about his family and home village would be on the PC side of the line and would be legitimate for the player to add in play - the GM could negate it by saying later "You thought that, but actually..." I remember one PC Hakeem, it turned out his dad probably wasn't who he thought it was, rather another guy who was now an evil warlord.
Does anyone object to a player adding that sort of stuff? I do think it can be taken too far (for a traditional game); one (otherwise v good) player came up with a lot of convoluted family stuff with relationships (ok) but also with plots that didn't interest me to play through and didn't relate to the other PCs. I rem saying "OK, that stuff gets sorted out". :) If she had just made NPCs that would have been fine.
Quote from: S'mon on May 03, 2021, 04:35:52 AM
A guy on EN World made the distinction that there is a line between "stuff PC should know" and "stuff PC wouldn't know". So eg a PC talking about his family and home village would be on the PC side of the line and would be legitimate for the player to add in play - the GM could negate it by saying later "You thought that, but actually..." I remember one PC Hakeem, it turned out his dad probably wasn't who he thought it was, rather another guy who was now an evil warlord.
Does anyone object to a player adding that sort of stuff? I do think it can be taken too far (for a traditional game); one (otherwise v good) player came up with a lot of convoluted family stuff with relationships (ok) but also with plots that didn't interest me to play through and didn't relate to the other PCs. I rem saying "OK, that stuff gets sorted out". :) If she had just made NPCs that would have been fine.
I don't object to a player adding "color" to a character. That the character disliked a childhood acquaintance is color. What the character did about it is probably mere background. That's no different than a mannerism the character affects. If there is any meaning to attach to it (e.g. what the childhood acquaintance did and certainly why), then it falls under the GM umbrella for me.
Again, in a one-shot or in series of unrelated adventures that might as well be one-shots except with the same characters, I don't mind more than that. When I'm running my usual campaign, details about who you know, what they did, why they did it, etc. often form a web of intrigue that if pursued can drive a major course of action in the campaign. For example, in a recent D&D campaign, one of the threads was that three of the characters shared the same mother and none of them knew it when the game started. That was why all three of them had some unusual abilities.
Of course, you need players that thrive in that kind of environment. The one thing that unites all the players in my main group is that they love uncovering mysteries. The last thing they want to do is provide that information on the fly.
Edit: It's a good thing that the players agree with me, because I don't particularly enjoy the whole, "Player throws a monkey wrench into the basis of the campaign and now I need to somehow work it in," activity. Which might be strange, because I don't mind monkey wrenches tossed by actions of the characters.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 03, 2021, 08:19:50 AM
Edit: It's a good thing that the players agree with me, because I don't particularly enjoy the whole, "Player throws a monkey wrench into the basis of the campaign and now I need to somehow work it in," activity. Which might be strange, because I don't mind monkey wrenches tossed by actions of the characters.
This is a great distinction. Character action puts skin in the game, and I will take those monkey wrenches all day too.
Narratively wishing a key on a guard previously encountered to get past a locked door, an example from the video, is lazy and not interesting. This holds true whether I am a player or a GM.
A player in a biweekly game my wife and I also play in probably does this 3/4 the time. One of three things typically happen, the DM allows it, the DM does not allow it, or the player gets a roll without consequences in the event of a miss. Yawn.
Quote from: FingerRod on May 03, 2021, 08:54:13 AM
Narratively wishing a key on a guard previously encountered to get past a locked door, an example from the video, is lazy and not interesting.
"I search the guard for a key" is fine though, surely - not establishing facts about the world. Most players either say that or "Does the guard have a key?" to which GM should say "You see one" or "You don't see one - are you searching him?"
Quote from: S'mon on May 03, 2021, 04:35:52 AMDoes anyone object to a player adding that sort of stuff? I do think it can be taken too far (for a traditional game); one (otherwise v good) player came up with a lot of convoluted family stuff with relationships (ok) but also with plots that didn't interest me to play through and didn't relate to the other PCs. I rem saying "OK, that stuff gets sorted out". :) If she had just made NPCs that would have been fine.
It depends on what kind of details they add, and whether what they describe matches the actual cultures and traditions in the game world, or involves events that are at least plausible in that context, as opposed to being merely convenient for the PC in play or some weird contrivance that's out of tone with what I envision for the world or the scenario characters find themselves in.
Quote from: S'mon on May 03, 2021, 08:58:55 AM
Quote from: FingerRod on May 03, 2021, 08:54:13 AM
Narratively wishing a key on a guard previously encountered to get past a locked door, an example from the video, is lazy and not interesting.
"I search the guard for a key" is fine though, surely - not establishing facts about the world. Most players either say that or "Does the guard have a key?" to which GM should say "You see one" or "You don't see one - are you searching him?"
Absolutely fine.
The example guard Sandy was talking about did not originally have the key. He magically placed it on the body after a player suggested there should have been a key on the guard. He agreed and thought it was a good idea, and then concluded the example saying the players were co-creating the world.
That is certainly a viable way to play a game, almost like a mini aspect of Blades in the Dark or other story games where flashback mechanics can influence the past, present, and future. While viable, I don't find it compelling.
The locked door is the present obstacle. As a GM I want to limit the use of previous obstacles as solutions. In that example, I might say, "Good idea. It is reasonable some guards would carry keys. The one you dealt with did not have one, but that does not mean another might not."
When building the scenario, if I had determined the guard had a key and they just forgot to search the guard, that is different.
Quote from: FingerRod on May 03, 2021, 11:30:18 AM
As a GM I want to limit the use of previous obstacles as solutions.
Why's that? Is it that you don't want to make it easy for the PCs?
Quote from: S'mon on May 03, 2021, 11:41:40 AM
Quote from: FingerRod on May 03, 2021, 11:30:18 AM
As a GM I want to limit the use of previous obstacles as solutions.
Why's that? Is it that you don't want to make it easy for the PCs?
Thanks for the question. My goal is to neither make things hard nor easy for a PC. My goal is for game elements to be fun and compelling. I find action moving forward more compelling than action moving backwards.
The statement you quoted was a supporting statement to the existence of a present obstacle (locked door). If I put a locked door in front of the PCs, it is an opportunity for something interesting to happen. If we are just going to pretend the solution to that locked door was already to be found on something already conquered, why put it there in the first place?
Real story from this weekend involving a locked door... One of the PCs asked me, "Does the door open into the next room or would it open towards me?" I told him it opened towards him. He then wanted to know if it had two or three hinges. At that point I already knew where he was going with it. I told him there were two, he made a shitty face and said, "I want to pop the door off the hinges."
Now don't get me wrong, after thousands of locked doors over the years, they are hardly compelling. I have been foiled by which way the door opens a hundred times. Because the PC stayed in the moment he was able to make fun of my shitty door, see that look in my eyes when I knew that he had gotten me, and that made it fun. I did not have to place a key that never existed on a body, and he did not have to evoke his Aspect of Opening Locked Things.
Looking back at your posts, I don't believe we are entirely disagreeing. I think you want to make sure I am not advocating being a dick for the sake of being a dick, or intentionally finding fun in making things hard for people. I can assure you that type of GMg is not fun. Am I off here or missing something? If so, hit me right between the eyes with it, I am having a Monday of Mondays hah.
Quote from: S'mon on May 03, 2021, 11:41:40 AM
Quote from: FingerRod on May 03, 2021, 11:30:18 AM
As a GM I want to limit the use of previous obstacles as solutions.
Why's that? Is it that you don't want to make it easy for the PCs?
Sometimes, when the players don't have a good idea how to handle the situation, I want them to retreat, regroup, look for another way--anything but continue to pound their heads against the current "scene" until it is resolved. It's hard enough to get players to do that sometimes as it is without encouraging, "I'll narrate a way to pull the solution out of my ass." But that is secondary. The primary reason is that sometimes there is a key on the guard; the players know I'm not bending the world to their whims; and therefore they know when they've hit on something that works, it was them exploring the world instead of narrating it.
Quote from: FingerRod on May 03, 2021, 02:04:08 PM
Quote from: S'mon on May 03, 2021, 11:41:40 AM
Quote from: FingerRod on May 03, 2021, 11:30:18 AM
As a GM I want to limit the use of previous obstacles as solutions.
Why's that? Is it that you don't want to make it easy for the PCs?
Thanks for the question. My goal is to neither make things hard nor easy for a PC. My goal is for game elements to be fun and compelling. I find action moving forward more compelling than action moving backwards.
The statement you quoted was a supporting statement to the existence of a present obstacle (locked door). If I put a locked door in front of the PCs, it is an opportunity for something interesting to happen. If we are just going to pretend the solution to that locked door was already to be found on something already conquered, why put it there in the first place?
Real story from this weekend involving a locked door... One of the PCs asked me, "Does the door open into the next room or would it open towards me?" I told him it opened towards him. He then wanted to know if it had two or three hinges. At that point I already knew where he was going with it. I told him there were two, he made a shitty face and said, "I want to pop the door off the hinges."
Now don't get me wrong, after thousands of locked doors over the years, they are hardly compelling. I have been foiled by which way the door opens a hundred times. Because the PC stayed in the moment he was able to make fun of my shitty door, see that look in my eyes when I knew that he had gotten me, and that made it fun. I did not have to place a key that never existed on a body, and he did not have to evoke his Aspect of Opening Locked Things.
Looking back at your posts, I don't believe we are entirely disagreeing. I think you want to make sure I am not advocating being a dick for the sake of being a dick, or intentionally finding fun in making things hard for people. I can assure you that type of GMg is not fun. Am I off here or missing something? If so, hit me right between the eyes with it, I am having a Monday of Mondays hah.
I don't think I was trying to 'get' you! :)
I guess in my GMing a locked door 99.5% of the time is a simulation element - yes, prison doors would logically be locked & yes - likely the key would be nearby. I sometimes GM published adventures where a door is set up as an obstacle to the players, but I don't think I do that much in my own stuff. I occasionally worry there aren't enough traps in my homebrew D&D games, since I normally only put traps in a dungeon when & if I think someone would have put them there. My players don't generally seem to realise this though, and will freak out at the sight of two facing serpent statues in the tunnel that I only put in for dressing...
Quote from: S'mon on May 03, 2021, 05:22:10 PM
I don't think I was trying to 'get' you! :)
I guess in my GMing a locked door 99.5% of the time is a simulation element - yes, prison doors would logically be locked & yes - likely the key would be nearby. I sometimes GM published adventures where a door is set up as an obstacle to the players, but I don't think I do that much in my own stuff. I occasionally worry there aren't enough traps in my homebrew D&D games, since I normally only put traps in a dungeon when & if I think someone would have put them there. My players don't generally seem to realise this though, and will freak out at the sight of two facing serpent statues in the tunnel that I only put in for dressing...
Very fair. Given recent behavior from newer members I would certainly understand if you were skeptical of my intent. I am glad you are not.
If traps are your blind spot, giving out magic items is undoubtably mine. Holy crap I take a lot of heat for being stingy on the magic items. For very similar reasons too. You are looking for logical reasons why a trap would be placed, and for me, if something was so magical and great, why would somebody leave it locked up?
At any rate, interesting topic and good read.
I have conditions players must meet before they are allowed to submit detailed backstories or suggestions.
- Read the campaign manual if it's a published pre-packaged campaign setting, or the campaign notes I provide you with if it's a homebrewed setting.
- Build your backstory with an understanding of those details, and inside of those parameters.
- Realize that suggestions you make outside of the parameters provided may not be integrated.
I don't usually care much for injecting any and every race into a swords & sorcery campaign, or things that break with whatever setting I'm using, regardless of players desiring to use their input to forge the new breed of half-races with whatever stat boosts make them gods at their class at first level and all that Tasha's nonsense on race construction.
And some races will be Evil, whether someone comes to my table demanding that they should be able to play a Lawful Good yuan-ti pureblood because the race is in Volo's and monster alignment is "optional"now or not.
I think it helps with "buy in" when you are first starting with a new group.
Provides for some vested interest, subject to the GM's approval.