Forums: Off-Topic Discussions: DungeonmasterCal's House of Respite (2024)

quibblemuch wrote:

That's where I like to use a little GM trick I call 'lying'.

Whatever the players do? Yes, that is what they were fated to do. The Fates (or whoever) already knew it in advance and therefore I as GM must have known it too.

One doesn't have to know what will happen in order to create the illusion that it was intentional and inevitable. It's all about information flow. Now yes, if a GM decides a timeline in advance of the players' actions and forces them to comply, that's (generally) not going to be much fun. But since none of us *know* the future, it's both (subjectively) undetermined and (potentially) completely determined.

This is why oracles throughout history have been so gosh-darned vague. The ones who get co*cky and get too specific nearly always end up on the business end of an angry and disappointed overlord's stabbin' stick.

EDIT: I'm also a big fan of The Xanatos Gambit.

Sure, but time travel messes with that. One of the really cool things in Fixed Timeline stories is when unexplained weirdness early on in the story turns out to be stuff the character actually did later in their personal timeline. But the key that doesn't work in RPGs is that you have to have the stuff happen on screen and then later in the game have the PCs decide to do it. An author can make sure all the pieces tie together because he controls them all. A GM doesn't - and shouldn't - have the same kind of control.

quibblemuch wrote:

…

One doesn't have to know what will happen in order to create the illusion that it was intentional and inevitable. It's all about information flow. Now yes, if a GM decides a timeline in advance of the players' actions and forces them to comply, that's (generally) not going to be much fun. But since none of us *know* the future, it's both (subjectively) undetermined and (potentially) completely determined.

…

EDIT: I'm also a big fan of The Xanatos Gambit.

I refer to it as the “illusion of choice.”

During any game session, I typically prepare only 3-5 encounters. Remarkably, regardless of the characters’ decisions or destinations, they inevitably end up within these prearranged scenarios. *wink*. Naturally, cosmetic details, including location and NPC names, are adapted to fit the group’s storyline. This approach necessitates that I, as the DM, remain agile and creative in my narration.

Hobson's Choice. Classic. As Henry Ford later said "You can have a Model T in any color, so long as it's black."

As I said earlier: "Meh. Fatalism. What are you going to do?"

quibblemuch wrote:

Hobson's Choice. Classic. As Henry Ford later said "You can have a Model T in any color, so long as it's black."

As I said earlier: "Meh. Fatalism. What are you going to do?"

word.

Tensor wrote:

I refer to it as the “illusion of choice.”

During any game session, I typically prepare only 3-5 encounters. Remarkably, regardless of the characters’ decisions or destinations, they inevitably end up within these prearranged scenarios. *wink*. Naturally, cosmetic details, including location and NPC names, are adapted to fit the group’s storyline. This approach necessitates that I, as the DM, remain agile and creative in my narration.

I have done this for decades, particularly if something is important to the storyline. We've always joked that if I give them options A, B, or C, they will invariably choose Q. I just moved the objective to Q and they never knew the difference.

On this note, I remember in a fiction workshop one time asking someone why a thing in their story (which I felt wasn't working) was the way it was. They just kept repeating "Because that's what happened" without grokking the key point that it was THEIR FICTIONAL story and so they could choose which character did what.

Talk about fatalism...

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

Tensor wrote:

I refer to it as the “illusion of choice.”

During any game session, I typically prepare only 3-5 encounters. Remarkably, regardless of the characters’ decisions or destinations, they inevitably end up within these prearranged scenarios. *wink*. Naturally, cosmetic details, including location and NPC names, are adapted to fit the group’s storyline. This approach necessitates that I, as the DM, remain agile and creative in my narration.

I have done this for decades, particularly if something is important to the storyline. We've always joked that if I give them options A, B, or C, they will invariably choose Q. I just moved the objective to Q and they never knew the difference.

"I didn't order the linguine!"

"And yet, here is the linguine. And since, as your server, I deliver what you order, you must have ordered the linguine."
"..."
"Fresh ground pepper?"

quibblemuch wrote:

I remember in a fiction workshop one time asking someone why a thing in their story (which I felt wasn't working) was the way it was. They just kept repeating "Because that's what happened

Are you sure it only happened one time?

I think there's one of those folks in every fiction writing workshop. And it usually involves their dog.

I don't do a lot of fiction workshops. Fewer than 5 in the past three decades.

I have a hard time sitting still.

Also, I've been told my user interface needs work. *shrug*

Dancing Wind wrote:

I think there's one of those folks in every fiction writing workshop. And it usually involves their dog.

This was more like: Imagine young Arthur had a buddy named Eddie and when they were squires together, Eddie pulled Excalibur out of the stone, but the story was still all about Arthur and Excalibur. And the writer kept insisting that Eddie had gotten there first because he was faster, so that's just how it happened. And also, Eddie wasn't the main character, it was still Arthur. And the fact that Eddie could run faster than Arthur was never a significant detail, except in that opening scene.

"So... why does Eddie pull the sword out?" I naively asked.
"Because that's what happened."
"But... why?"
"Because he was faster."
"So... Arthur couldn't have been faster, seeing as how it is his sword and his story?"
"But Eddie is faster."

*this continues for a few minutes*

It was an odd conversation.

quibblemuch wrote:

This was more like: Imagine young Arthur had a buddy named Eddie and when they were squires together, Eddie pulled Excalibur out of the stone, but the story was still all about Arthur and Excalibur. And the writer kept insisting that Eddie had gotten there first because he was faster, so that's just how it happened. And also, Eddie wasn't the main character, it was still Arthur. And the fact that Eddie could run faster than Arthur was never a significant detail, except in that opening scene.

"So... why does Eddie pull the sword out?" I naively asked.
"Because that's what happened."
"But... why?"
"Because he was faster."
"So... Arthur couldn't have been faster, seeing as how it is his sword and his story?"
"But Eddie is faster."

'Course I was faster! I'm just that good. And not only that, but I went right up to that gosh-danged stone, pulled out that sword, and sliced Arthur's heckin' head clean off, 'cause I never liked that no-good dingus anyhow. And then everybody got real mad, and I was all, "what did I do?" I still don't get it.