Quote from: Elliot WilenThis is different from the example Blakkie gave of using divination to effect a certain type of weather on a given day, even if he modifies the target number depending on the local climate. Suppose we grant that the GM doesn't ordinarily plan the weather or have a handy mechanic for generating it. If divination "really" allows you to predict the weather on a given night, the chance of having fog can't be dependent on the skill of the diviner. Now, if you change things slightly, so that the PCs can choose the night of the attack, then using divination to select a foggy night no longer violates the concept of an external game-world. But that option depends on whether there are other pressures which affect the time frame.

It's pretty rare for GMs to generate the weather beforehand in my experience. In fact, I once did it myself for an entire game year, and I never did it again. Let's have a look at what blakkie did:

QuoteThe Elf has Weathersong which is a divining magic. The player says, I think it's going to be foggy down at the docks. So we agree upon a Obstacle 2, the player rolls, and he meets that. He has earned the right to determine that it is indeed foggy providing them with good cover. If he hadn't he would have predicted wrong and when they attempted to board it would have been clear skies with the moon shining down brightly.

So the character did not alter the world with weather altering magic. The player was able to choose the world state by using the character's divining magic. It didn't even have to be magic to do this. He could have used, if he character had had it, a mundane skill like Weather-Wise.

This is a clever use of a divining magic. Let's say that the player had rolled badly. The night would then have been clear, forcing the players to choose either another night or another plan. Granted?

If so, let's see what might have happened using a different method. Let's say the GM has actually determined the weather for every night that year. The player makes his roll for divining; the GM informs him of the weather. If the weather is favourable, the plan goes ahead. If not, the players choose either another night or another plan. Best case (ie most well-prepped) scenario gives us exactly the same result.

If the GM has not determined the weather in advance, he must make a spot decision (either directly or by setting a target number and rolling). Again, the result is that the players must change either the timing or the plan. Moreover, unless the GM can stonewall the players and manage to hide the fact that his decision is on the spot, this results in some of that very feeling of an external world being lost.

So it was an efficient way to use a character power, generate a plausible result, and get on with the game. Now, I'm not saying it's the only way to do it, and I'm not saying this approach will work in every situation imaginable, but it looks good. My point was that people weren't really giving blakkie's posts proper consideration; instead simply dismissing them in an arbitrary manner.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen...where someone explicitly or implicitly defines a term for the sake of a given discussion...

For the sake of the discussion? It side-tracked the discussion.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBTW, Blakkie asks what is the benefit of the latter approach. One benefit is that it creates an opportunity for meaningful strategic thought, for those interested in pure challenge.

"Challenge" is pure bugaboo. I'm all about the challenge. Strategic thinking as in long term planning and schemes that take dozens upon dozens of gaming sessions time to finally spring? Oh man, you have no idea how close that is to my heart. Yet I'm OK with this thing that you imply does not present an opportunity for meaningful strategic thought? But how?

QuoteAnother is that it provides a strong sense of context and weight for moral decisions within the world. So, e.g., the complex ramifications of a given decision have causal linkages within the fiction instead of being obvious products of arbitrary metagame judgments.

Little secret, these worlds in these games are all made up. Even when it is premade it's made up. At best they could charitable be called a highly dubious simulation heavily coloured by ill-informed preconceived notions. If you don't understand this I suggest that this board is not for you.

QuoteAt this point I'm remembering an old post I came across on rec.games.board the other day, where a particularly egregious wanker by the name of Patrick Carroll explained how to keep him out of threads. And the answer was: discuss a specific game.

Ironically this dragging of BW into this came about because of the request for AP. Although I've mentioned SR too.

But maybe you are right. Maybe this isn't the thread. So I shall create a new one.

Droog, I also wouldn't expect a GM to prep weather beforehand; at most I'd expect a sane GM to use a table, though I've heard of some crazy dudes who've actually tried to model weather systems for their continent. Again, I don't advocate that approach.

But here's the thing. You're saying: same effect regardless of whether the weather is determined independently or combined with the divination roll. I disagree.

Counterexample: One PC has Weathersong 3. Another has Weathersong 5. Then if the GM determines the Ob (target number) independently of who's making the divination, you end up with a better chance of a foggy night with the skill 5 person. At some level of ability, if the GM is being consistent in setting target numbers, you end up with a PC who can practically force the presence of fog at will.

All this is aside from the possibility that failure on the roll doesn't distinguish between a mistaken divination, and accurate divination but clear weather. Moreover, the description of the situation suggests that the PCs don't really need a lot of preparation--i.e., they could make a last-minute decision whether the fog was thick enough. So the use of divination comes up as just a metagame tool for "establishing narrational authority", rather than an in-game tool for interacting with the external world.

Now I should say how I'd handle it, shouldn't I? Given the goals of this thread, unless there was a table already, I'd simply announce a probability on the spot, but I'd be willing to discuss it with the players. Furthermore if knowing the weather beforehand was crucial to the timing or execution of the plan, I'd then layer the use of divination on top of that.

Quote from: John MorrowThe game requires not only a well-defined background but it also needs to be accessible to the players and their characters and not just the GM.



Basically, for the players to make proactive plans, they either need to know what their "assets" are or they you wind up with things like, "What I wouldn't give for a holocaust cloak," (or, as a real example, "Does this planet have a zoo?") as players grasp for something they could do.  While, "What I wouldn't give for a holocaust cloak," is funny and could work in a light game, for a serious game, I much prefer not to get into games of "20 questions" with the GM.  And while creating logical details on the fly sometimes works, they often involve more out-of-character thinking than I'd prefer to engage in.

One other thing I'd like to add is that I think many GMs and writers design scenarios that are purposely designed to discourage proactive play, because it's easier to run an adventure when the players aren't doing unexpected things.  Why do I say that?  Because the whole structure of many adventures is to put the PCs into an unfamiliar environment that they know little about.  Whether it's a dungeon or a journey to a far off land, the less the players know about the background and setting, the harder it is for them to proactively play their characters.

This is definitely the case.  It's a particularly thorny issue in an intrigue-heavy game, like I often run.  The players really need to have the revelant knowledge that their characters would have, like who might have wanted to kill the imam, or what kind of funding it takes to outfit a galleon for a year's journey (oddly enough, more than it costs to build the thing, IIRC).  

There are a few good ways to approach the problem:

1.  Base your game world on the real world.  This takes care of a lot of the work of communicating a common background (and it is work), but not all of it.  You've still got to communicate the ways in which the game world differs from the real world, and you've still got to communicate relevant real-world knowledge (like, say, what Venetian social customs were in the 1540's, or how nanotechnology works).  

2.  Base your game world on a fictional setting that all the players know well.  ALL the players.  Well, maybe all but one.  But that's the limit.  In any case, any fictional setting provides rather less common background than the real world does -- so there's more work to be done communicating background (well, maybe not, depending on when the real world based game is set, and the educational backgrounds of the players).  

3.  Have the game group collectively create and flesh out the game world.  This works in conjunction with 1 and 2.  If you've got a group of players who enjoy world building, this takes the work out of communicating game background.  Collective creation doesn't necessarily mean that all players have an equal voice; I generally use a mechanism I call "The Newsreel", where we all create game world events -- but these events are what's in the news; the truth behind the events can be left up to the GM (or not, as you prefer).

Quote from: Elliot WilenDroog, I also wouldn't expect a GM to prep weather beforehand; at most I'd expect a sane GM to use a table, though I've heard of some crazy dudes who've actually tried to model weather systems for their continent. Again, I don't advocate that approach.

Don't knock it till you've tried it. It did actually allow me to come up with some cool ideas which doing it in-game wouldn't have. For instance, I rolled up a storm that went for almost two weeks. Since the players were worshippers of the storm god, there was evidently something going on, and the most devout chr was visited by dreams that hinted at something relevant to their plans. I remember the atmosphere when I described the dream – it brought the table to a standstill and fetched one guy out of his room to listen. That was partly because the description of the storm going on for days and days had allowed me to build up a sort of tension.

QuoteBut here's the thing. You're saying: same effect regardless of whether the weather is determined independently or combined with the divination roll. I disagree.

What I'm saying is that if your concern is player strategy, it's the same effect. Also, divination is a notoriously thorny problem in most games, and this is a pretty slick way to handle it.

QuoteNow I should say how I'd handle it, shouldn't I? Given the goals of this thread, unless there was a table already, I'd simply announce a probability on the spot, but I'd be willing to discuss it with the players. Furthermore if knowing the weather beforehand was crucial to the timing or execution of the plan, I'd then layer the use of divination on top of that.

See, once you discuss it with the players, you're opening the way to their metagame input anyway. That's not a bad thing, but it's not as well-regulated as using mechanics. It may or may not strike people as being more plausible, and it may or may not break their SOD, and it may or may not lead to a great big argument.

Quote from: Lee Short1.  Base your game world on the real world.  This takes care of a lot of the work of communicating a common background (and it is work), but not all of it.  You've still got to communicate the ways in which the game world differs from the real world, and you've still got to communicate relevant real-world knowledge (like, say, what Venetian social customs were in the 1540's, or how nanotechnology works).  

I ran a V&V game in which the players played themselves, and I ran the world in real time (ie if two weeks had passed since we played, two weeks would have passed in the game world). I pinched this idea from an old Journal of the Travellers' Aid Society, and it worked really well.

Quote from: droogDon't knock it till you've tried it.

Okay...I mean, really, if somebody hands me a weather generator or an earthquake generator, I might use it. But I can do without tracking weather systems across a continent. When it comes to simulation for the sake of strategic thought, I'm happy to "fix" the level of abstraction and accept the exclusion of details. But once excluded, I don't want to strategize as if they're important, though I do plan on using details as after-the-fact explanations. (E.g. if someone botches a piloting roll badly, I think it's cool to say that a fly was trapped in the cockpit and distracted the PC. But I'm not going to subsequently make adjustments to the chance of a botch if the player later hangs flypaper around the hangar, nor am I going to waste significant time and resources, as a player, trying to keep the flies out--even though all that can be fun color as long as everyone understands we're not going on an infinite hunt for the effect of details.)

QuoteWhat I'm saying is that if your concern is player strategy, it's the same effect. Also, divination is a notoriously thorny problem in most games, and this is a pretty slick way to handle it.

I'm not going to belabor the point, but for me it fails to meet the test of representing player-character strategy.

QuoteSee, once you discuss it with the players, you're opening the way to their metagame input anyway. That's not a bad thing, but it's not as well-regulated as using mechanics. It may or may not strike people as being more plausible, and it may or may not break their SOD, and it may or may not lead to a great big argument.

This is true. As I see it, my approach clearly demarcates the in-game and meta-game responsibilities and allows the players (if they're like me) to enjoy worrying about a botched divination--assuming that it really is important to have advance knowledge of the weather. Whereas allowing divination to, effectively, provide a metagame resource for dictating results--that completely kills the representational correspondence between mechanic and fiction. Divination is for finding things out, not making stuff happen.

Edited to add: honestly, I'd throw up a percent chance, and if the players thought it was too low I'd let them pick whatever number they wanted on the assumption that this was a one-time event and it's their fun. If determination of the weather became a factor--as it might be likely to be, with a player who can predict it--then I'd definitely start looking for tables, or I'd abstract time scales and let the diviner specify the weather on the assumption that the PCs have discretion over when they'll execute their plan.

Quote from: blakkie"Challenge" is pure bugaboo. I'm all about the challenge. Strategic thinking as in long term planning and schemes that take dozens upon dozens of gaming sessions time to finally spring? Oh man, you have no idea how close that is to my heart.

Could be. I have doubts about our ability to communicate with one another.

QuoteLittle secret, these worlds in these games are all made up. Even when it is premade it's made up. At best they could charitable be called a highly dubious simulation heavily coloured by ill-informed preconceived notions.

This I understand, though; please look again at my use of the term "fiction". The causes are fictional, the dynamics are fictional, the effects are fictional. But it's still cause-based simulation as opposed to effects-based emulation.

QuoteBut maybe you are right. Maybe this isn't the thread. So I shall create a new one.

Good show.

Quote from: droogWe understand! But that base has been covered. My point is that the polarisation has progressed to the point where alternative approaches are instantly dismissed without proper evaluation.

It has nothing to do with dismissing other approaches droog. The fact is, for a lot of folks there is a certain dynamic, trad if you like(or don't), that separates the different playstyles.

I was not dismissing blakkie's experience, and if you think I was, please point out where....I was merely sayin' could we please discuss the issue of proactive play in the context of the admittedly vague concept of trad play(which is what I thought this thread was about).

Of course preference comes into play, but still, we can discuss the topic at hand without resorting to silly semantic side treks.

I don't think the problem is that folks have become polarised, I do think the problem is that folks don't want to acknowledge there are different styles of play, and sometimes, the best way to avoid needless conflict, is to address the style of play at hand rather than to push a preference.

There has been a few interesting developments since I last checked this thread and some interesting points raised, which I will address later

Regards,
David R

Quote from: blakkie*shrug*  I get the impression that David is really hung up on this idea of some arbitrary, and somewhat contradictory, taxonomy a "trad" game. He didn't follow the "trad" setting generation, which I thought was a pretty cool example.....outside of that he then changed the tune about proactivity for the "main" plot thread.  

I'm not hung up on anything. I am interested however in discovering ways to encourage proactivity in the style I play in. Again, I didn't change the "tune", I was merely giving an example of how, I though I encouraged proavtive play in my current campaign, esp with regards, to setting creation. I never once said, that the whole campiagn was proactive play and indeed, I am eager to discover was of making it so, within the context of my prefered playstyle.

QuoteDid it remain the "main" thread? Did David push hard for it to remain? Was it just an unspoken assumption with everyone that it was to be the main thread?  (and don't feel I'm sitting in judgement there whatever those answers)

No, it did not remain or rather it seems more like the players switch from proactive to reactive players depending on the situation.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: TonyLBSo when I'm GMing, I try to make it clear to people that they can ask questions for which they hope the answer is "No," and I won't make up a "Yes" just in order to feel creative.  "Is there any reason we know of that we couldn't firebomb the prince?"  "Hrm ... well, there's that one ghoul body-guard, but he can't really stop a bomb ... well, golly, I guess there isn't any reason you know of!"

Anyone else use this kind of technique explicitly?

Yeah, I get where you're going with this, but this is not really my style of running games. The players have to plan and discover things - if this makes any sense - they don't get an answer from me.

For instance, in your ghoul bodyguard example, I would not tell them, that the guard would not be able to stop a bomb (even if this was the case). During play they would discover this themselves.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RThe fact is, for a lot of folks there is a certain dynamic, trad if you like(or don't), that separates the different playstyles.

I disagree, at least in the specific context of what blakkie was talking about. He pointed out that 'trad' play, increasingly, seems to be very narrowly defined. Now, I happen to think that this is a result of the Schweinkrieg.

Note Balbinus's post #13:

QuoteAll true, but I'm not marketing a game so I don't need to worry about the mainstream and what it wants, I just have to worry about what I and my group may enjoy.

and #23 (in humorous response to blakkie):

QuoteThat makes it far worse, by implying some kind of commonality of content between such different types of games.

It shows just how subtle your machinations are, first you introduce circles to Shadowrun, next thing your group are playing an rpg about exploring a middle aged man's crisis on being passed over for a promotion using a resolution mechanic based on searches of on-line job sites. It's a slippery slope.

I'm not trying to put words in B's mouth here, but it seems to me he's asking for any ideas or techniques that people might have. He hasn't drawn some sort of line in the sand, which is what I'd expect given his nature. Neither he nor I see sharp dividing lines here, just techniques that may be used or not.

I've been playing these games a very long time, and I simply do not see such a sharp difference in dynamics as you suggest. Of course there are different styles of play, but as you said yourself, the concept of 'trad' play is ill-defined and vague. So is 'Forgey' play, for that matter.

Quote from: droogI'm not trying to put words in B's mouth here, but it seems to me he's asking for any ideas or techniques that people might have. He hasn't drawn some sort of line in the sand, which is what I'd expect given his nature. Neither he nor I see sharp dividing lines here, just techniques that may be used or not.

Fair enough. Then the mistake was mine. I was assuming that the discussion centered on methods to encourage proactivity in trad play which although ill defined, is certainly different from the kind of play blakkie was suggesting.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: droogI've been playing these games a very long time, and I simply do not see such a sharp difference in dynamics as you suggest. Of course there are different styles of play, but as you said yourself, the concept of 'trad' play is ill-defined and vague. So is 'Forgey' play, for that matter.

I've also been playing games for a long time too and I certainly see a difference. I think one of the problems as far as online discussions go, is that some folks don't see this difference and assume that methods used in one playstyle is appropiate for another.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI've also been playing games for a long time too and I certainly see a difference. I think one of the problems as far as online discussions go, is that some folks don't see this difference and assume that methods used in one playstyle is appropiate for another.

The point is that this 'playstyle' thing isn't even defined. Any playstyle is nothing more than an accumulation of techniques.

Here, see what you make of this: for a particular game in a particular campaign, I imported a technique I had read about. I gave each of the players an NPC to play; those NPCs being the leaders of their usual characters. The NPCs had no stats; only descriptions. They roleplayed a meeting of these leaders dealing with a certain issue; the decisions made at this meeting impacted back on their own chrs.

Now, 'traditional' or not? When do you think I played this game? From where do you think the idea might have come? How do you think the players might have taken it?