The Campaign Builder's Guild

I've broken this off from Xeviat's D&D Stat Generation Methods thread because we've gone completely off topic.

Quote from: LordVreegI used to have groups come to me with their issues, and the real issue was the GM allowed some unbalanced aspects and di not know how to balance the game internally, and random stat generation can be part of this.  It takes a good GM to create satisfaction for a player who is playing a mediocre fighter in a group while there is a Paladin created the same time with an 18 ST and a 17 CON.

And it takes a better GM to realize that you're better off just not creating this situation in the first place.

By "create satisfaction," I assume you're trying to assert that it takes a good GM to find things for the less capable party member to do so as not to be totally outshone by the party member of greater capability. I do not agree. It is absolutely trivial to do this, and anyone who has ever read a Justice League comic book knows how: Batman fights the Batman-level threat, while Superman handles the Superman-level threat. The thing is, though, it's completely obvious what's going on. You could argue that it takes a certain amount of GM skill to hide these sorts of stealth manipulations, and I might agree with you there, but you'll never hide it from some players, and they're the ones most likely to be insulted and/or dissatisfied by it. It seems like a whole lot of GM effort in applying spot-fixes and stealth buffs/nerfs that could be avoided-- and instead expended on creating a more dynamic, fun, interesting, immersive game world-- if the GM would just have an actual balanced party. Then the GM could make up a challenging encounter, at about the skill level of the party, where everyone gets to contribute.

Most RPG systems have enough trouble balancing characters that are ostensibly at the same level of capability. D&D 3e (and 3.5, and Pathfinder, etc.) and the disparity between the capabilities of Fighters and Wizards is a perfect example. In skill-based systems, there are always going to be some skills that end up being more useful than others, so characters built on the less useful skills may not always be as capable. Keeping all this in mind, it's difficult enough to balance an encounter already. Throwing more monkey wrenches into it in the form of widely disparate capabilities of party members is just asking for trouble.

And why? To nostalgically stick to some stat generation scheme used in the old days? The thing is, as you probably know, OD&D gave like a +1 to hit for having a strength of 18. The stat barely mattered as long as you managed to be over 10. So it didn't really matter that they were randomly rolled because they barely did anything. That's not in the case in most modern RPGs. Randomly generating anything when there's no reason to is just messing up game balance for no gain, except maybe more headaches.

In Steerpike's CE game my character was always several levels lower than TMG's. It never sucked. Just saying.

I'm about to leave for Maine, and will be offlijne for a while.

But few of us who design games have not taken the time to think good and hard as to why we design each and every piece of every game.
Yes, Randomly rolled stats and abilities create some problems with balance.  But they help create a system with deeper immersion, on many levels, as well as a different enjoment in the chargen itself.

It is not the people who design and use these systems are morons who are dumb enough to mess up game balance for no gain.  There are trade-offs.  You might not see them, but many of us do.  It is not merely nostalgia.

BAck later. 

Vreeg, I am going to pick on you a little bit, partially because I know you can handle it, and partially because you've hit one of my pet peeves.

Quote from: LordVreegYes, Randomly rolled stats and abilities create some problems with balance.  But they help create a system with deeper immersion, on many levels, as well as a different enjoment in the chargen itself.

Two things:

1.) How, exactly, does this chargen mechanic "create deeper immersion on many levels"? It certainly takes away player choice, but is that the same thing? (Alternately: aren't there other ways to increase immersion that still allow players to take more ownership over the characters they want to play?)

2.) Why is "creating deeper immersion" the goal? Are there other goals that are equally valuable or perhaps even more valuable? (Maybe "creating an experience that is fun" goes on the list, or even "making a framework that allows players to tell an engaging story," if I may be so bold as to use the S-word.) If we acknowledge multiple goals, what systems best help us work towards all of our objectives?

Balance is a weird thing. You really need to decide what you're balancing for. Do you want everyone to be equally able to contribute, everyone to contribute a unique thing in a unique way, everyone to contribute to the same arena, or do you want PvP equality? The first is vague, the second is easier to balance (it doesn't matter that the cleric is two levels lower if he's the only healer), the third is potentially problematic (RPGs utilize multiple sub-games, and not all of them interest all players), and the last is understandable only if NPCs and PCs are built on the same model or PvP is expected as a normal occurrence in the game.

Player choice has similar problems because the framework of what you can choose vs what you can't is part of what makes these games fun. Finite resources is what makes resource management work well. Randomly rolled damage and the uncertainty of combat is what allows combat to be somewhat tense. Not knowing what is on the other side of the door, but weighing the odds based on experience and evidence... it's fun. And so on. The limitations are fundamental for a lot of people to the enjoyment of the game. If the players had the option of stocking the dungeon with easy enemies, even having the option to stock the same dungeon with harder enemies wouldn't appeal to the desire for uncertainty and all the rest of what goes with it. For some people, character creation is something a little like that. You could end up with a brute wizard and get this unique gameplay challenge you wouldn't end up with (or wouldn't be as happy with) if you were given a choice.

Quote from: LordVreegBut few of us who design games have not taken the time to think good and hard as to why we design each and every piece of every game.

If everyone is thinking good and hard (including me!) then I've accomplished my goal. I may be blunt, but I'm also constructive.

Quote from: LordVreegRandomly rolled stats and abilities create some problems with balance.  But they help create a system with deeper immersion, on many levels, as well as a different enjoment in the chargen itself.

I second LC. How do they do this, exactly? How is one assured of deeper immersion simply because everyone rolled their stats randomly rather than using point-buy, arrays, or, hey, writing down arbitrary values?

Quote from: LordVreegThere are trade-offs.  You might not see them, but many of us do.

Well, what are they, then?

Quote from: beejazzYou really need to decide what you're balancing for.

Good point. I think in this context I was using "balanced" in the sense that everyone was able to do their schtick to help to prevail in the encounter (whether that's a combat, a test of skills, or whatever) with nobody being in the position to completely monopolize the encounter but everyone able to contribute. Sort of the goal (not the actual outcome, but the goal) of a 4e skill challenge, I guess.

Again, on the iPad up in Maine...so not at my most fluid.

Immersion is created by many things.  In game, it is easier to explain.  And in game, the appearance of a natural world, as opposed to a level appropriate or balanced one, is one that feels more real.  This also happens in chargen I believe.  Too much choice or player input is the mark of a shared narrative, which I believe is always a more difficult immersion.  Partially because our natural existence is very much  taking what reality hands us and responding to it, not deciding what is going to happen to us.

Now, going to the second and very pertinent question...first of all, tautologist, your goals are not mutually exclusive.  For many people, a more immersed experience is a more fun one, or a better way to create a story.so if you want to come up with other priorities, maybe we should look at design goals that are less intertwined.  
But if you are asking/stating who much does immersion define an RPG or the fun in it, I agree it does not.  It is an ingredient but not THE ingredient.

And I agree with Beejazz' points, and enlarge them.  Uncertainty is part of immersion but also part of the fun....

I think the need for game balance is a myth.
Well, somewhat, anyway.
Game balance is ostensibly the idea of making characters equal on some specific scale, but this requires that the game has some structural element where all characters are expected to participate. Take D&D, the perennial example, where we have the idea of the "encounter". Firstly, this posits that all characters take part in combat. Secondly, it assumes all games contain encounters (i.e. combat) - if not, balance (the D&D version) becomes meaningless.
I think we should acknowledge that characters are in fact often fundamentally different. Their "power" simply can't be directly compared because they operate on different scales. The Batman/Superman example doesn't really help here, but take e.g. a heist movie where every character has a purpose and gets time in the spotlight, but where everything would fall to pieces if any two characters were forced to switch places and roles. You can't say one character is superior to the other, but in a fight you know who will win between the getaway driver and the enforcer. Their power resides in specialization. A social character has as much value as a martial one, albeit in different situations.

Further, the artificial need for game balance is exacerbated by the the rather steep challenge difficulty curve in traditional games like D20. If you don't go out of your way to keep your character balanced (or even optimized, depending on the party) you will fall behind the curve and will either become a liability to your party or simply be incapable of facing the supposedly level-appropriate encounters.

As to the discussion about random stat generation, I can see the arguments both for and against. It's mostly a question of control, really. There are several merits to playing pre-generated or organically (read: randomly) generated characters, where the player doesn't always have the final say over the nature of his character.
I believe immersion will increase since the player has to adopt to his character's personality, instead of the character's personality adopting to the player's.
The latter is naturally a more fluid situation, with the player more likely to change personality and behaviour on the fly as he develops the character through play rather than at character generation. On the other hand, with random stats you can't always create the character you hoped. There is a lot of difference between characters with mostly average scores and one with some high and some low - one could be a jack-of-all-trades mercenary and the other a sickly genius wizard, but the other way around is not immediately possible.
So ultimately, as pointed out before, it is a question of the game you want to play. Are you making a story for the players' roles or are they playing roles for your story?
     

Quote from: LordVreegImmersion is created by many things.  In game, it is easier to explain.  And in game, the appearance of a natural world, as opposed to a level appropriate or balanced one, is one that feels more real.

While you're correct that immersion is created by many things, I think it's fair to say that the most important factor for immersion when it comes to games (including RPGs) is the ability to hold the interest of the players. If the players are bored or frustrated, no amount of verisimilitude or appearance of a natural world or whatever other window dressing you want to throw around will do any good at all. Therefore, it seems like keeping the players engaged in the game must be the primary priority of the group, and, specifically, the GM, even when it runs contrary to other "immersive" ideas.

I understand what you're saying about a natural world not being level appropriate and balanced, but it's still a role playing game, and that makes it fundamentally different than a "world simulation." I like the idea of a world that feels vibrant and alive, too, and I don't want a world where nothing happens unless the players had something to do with it. However, unlike a world that "just is," the world of an RPG still fundamentally revolves around the player characters, because it's their game, after all. As such, the GM has to ensure that some meaningful part of the world the players can interact with is in fact level appropriate and balanced. I'm not a big fan of modern D&D's rigid system of CR, ECL, and so on, but I still feel a degree of game balance and designing around the capabilities of the player characters is essential. After all, a player whose character can't succeed at the challenges the game lays out will not be engaged in the game, nor will a player with a character that automatically succeeds without any effort at all. (If the party has widely disparate capabilities, it's harder to avoid at least one of these situations coming up, which is why I complain about doing that so much)

Quote from: LordVreegThis also happens in chargen I believe.

Players stuck playing characters they don't want to play will not be engaged in the game. Removing player choice from character generation makes this possibility more likely. So, saying that randomly rolled stats themselves inherently lead to deeper immersion is false. Now, that's not to say they can't, and if the player wants a random character, great, go for it-- but that's still the choice to do it randomly, which is very different. The choice to not have a choice, as it were. On the other hand, some other players may feel far more immersed if they can craft a character that they truly want, who is connected to the world and has a backstory that ties her into the setting.

Quote from: LordVreegToo much choice or player input is the mark of a shared narrative, which I believe is always a more difficult immersion. Partially because our natural existence is very much  taking what reality hands us and responding to it, not deciding what is going to happen to us.

To expect that RPG characters be bound by a strong adherence to what they could "really" do is of dubious value when there are so many other limitations that do not apply to real people. Real people have their sensory input, a lifetime of skills, experiences and memories, and so on. On the other hand, in an RPG, we have far more limited information and many abstractions, incomplete and often startlingly different in their interpretation from player to player. Real reality is consistent, whereas a game's reality is dependent on the GM. So, giving players a bit more narrative control over the world beyond what a real person would realistically be able to control is often a good (if, admittedly, somewhat dissociated) way to simulate that. That little detail that your sharp-eyed character would definitely have noticed, but the GM didn't think to include? Let the player fill it in! Things like that.

As far as immersion is concerned, for everyone at the table except the GM (who isn't "immersed" in the usual sense anyway) and the one player who is currently exerting narrative control, nothing has changed. It's still something handed to them, described by someone else, that they have to respond to. Events are just as out of Player B's direct control whether they're described by the GM or by Player A. So it's really not as big of a deal as it seems.

Quote from: Superfluous CrowGame balance is ostensibly the idea of making characters equal on some specific scale, but this requires that the game has some structural element where all characters are expected to participate.

You're correct, but I think the assumption that all characters are expected to participate is a fairly good one to hold on to. It's sort of like splitting the party. If characters can't participate in a scene, then their players can't participate, and that means that they're likely to get bored. On the other hand, having everyone be able to participate keeps everyone engaged in the game, which is a good thing!

Quote from: Superfluous Crowa heist movie where every character has a purpose and gets time in the spotlight

Specialization can lead to encounters where one player gets to win it alone while everyone else sits around uselessly. Unless, of course, the encounter is constructed so that each of the specialists has their task in it and each gets a time to shine. Everyone contributes, but nobody can win it alone.
In other words, it's a well-designed, well-balanced encounter. :grin:

Sparkle, still in Maine...but you are making me think that we should do your experiment...because there is more than one perspective that is somehow not getting transmitted.  One major point is that most games I play are built for long campaigns, and that is a very different game and balance situation..
I'll be home Friday night.  Love you guys.

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: LordVreegImmersion is created by many things.  In game, it is easier to explain.  And in game, the appearance of a natural world, as opposed to a level appropriate or balanced one, is one that feels more real.

While you're correct that immersion is created by many things, I think it's fair to say that the most important factor for immersion when it comes to games (including RPGs) is the ability to hold the interest of the players. If the players are bored or frustrated, no amount of verisimilitude or appearance of a natural world or whatever other window dressing you want to throw around will do any good at all. Therefore, it seems like keeping the players engaged in the game must be the primary priority of the group, and, specifically, the GM, even when it runs contrary to other "immersive" ideas.

When Vreeg refers to immersion here, I think he's referring to something to something more specific, in a manner similar to how it gets discussed on a few other forums. Generally it means that the decisions and information available to the player should be the same as the decisions and information available to the character. It's why in most traditional RPGs there's a taboo on metagaming.

Engagement is a separate, less specific issue. It depends more highly on player preference. Recent games and game theories are interested in persistent engagement (avoiding things like time-consuming hacking minigames), which is a laudable goal that can sometimes be taken to unnecessary extremes. I'm of the opinion that sometimes players are specifically not interested in certain aspects of the game. Forcing constant involvement can lead to some amount of fatigue really.

QuoteI understand what you're saying about a natural world not being level appropriate and balanced, but it's still a role playing game, and that makes it fundamentally different than a "world simulation." I like the idea of a world that feels vibrant and alive, too, and I don't want a world where nothing happens unless the players had something to do with it. However, unlike a world that "just is," the world of an RPG still fundamentally revolves around the player characters, because it's their game, after all. As such, the GM has to ensure that some meaningful part of the world the players can interact with is in fact level appropriate and balanced. I'm not a big fan of modern D&D's rigid system of CR, ECL, and so on, but I still feel a degree of game balance and designing around the capabilities of the player characters is essential. After all, a player whose character can't succeed at the challenges the game lays out will not be engaged in the game, nor will a player with a character that automatically succeeds without any effort at all. (If the party has widely disparate capabilities, it's harder to avoid at least one of these situations coming up, which is why I complain about doing that so much)

This is why the world should have mixed level opponents, and methods of finding out who/what is where in advance. As a rule, if there is more to do than the players can do, they can proactively sort out for themselves what to engage with.

Parity is a separate issue, with a few individual sub-issues that can get dealt with in different ways.

Quote

Quote from: LordVreegThis also happens in chargen I believe.

Players stuck playing characters they don't want to play will not be engaged in the game. Removing player choice from character generation makes this possibility more likely. So, saying that randomly rolled stats themselves inherently lead to deeper immersion is false. Now, that's not to say they can't, and if the player wants a random character, great, go for it-- but that's still the choice to do it randomly, which is very different. The choice to not have a choice, as it were. On the other hand, some other players may feel far more immersed if they can craft a character that they truly want, who is connected to the world and has a backstory that ties her into the setting.

This is another place where you have to measure engagement vs interest. There is sometimes an issue with forcing a player to decide a lot of things they really don't care about. It's why people get sick of point buy. Anyway, I know buying stats is hardly as compicated as GURPS, but for some people *being* a particular character isn't as important as making decisions for whatever character they get.

As for the relationship with immersion (as opposed to engagement) I think it could be argued that your character didn't decide their stats, so the player shouldn't either. I'm not nearly that hardcore mind you. Just laying out what some might think with that.

Quote

Quote from: LordVreegToo much choice or player input is the mark of a shared narrative, which I believe is always a more difficult immersion. Partially because our natural existence is very much  taking what reality hands us and responding to it, not deciding what is going to happen to us.

To expect that RPG characters be bound by a strong adherence to what they could "really" do is of dubious value when there are so many other limitations that do not apply to real people. Real people have their sensory input, a lifetime of skills, experiences and memories, and so on. On the other hand, in an RPG, we have far more limited information and many abstractions, incomplete and often startlingly different in their interpretation from player to player. Real reality is consistent, whereas a game's reality is dependent on the GM. So, giving players a bit more narrative control over the world beyond what a real person would realistically be able to control is often a good (if, admittedly, somewhat dissociated) way to simulate that. That little detail that your sharp-eyed character would definitely have noticed, but the GM didn't think to include? Let the player fill it in! Things like that.

Realism is a whole other can of worms from engagement or immersion. There's a difference between abstraction and non-representational mechanics, and the necessity of arbitration (and where you draw the line between too much, enough, and not enough) is yet another issue.

QuoteAs far as immersion is concerned, for everyone at the table except the GM (who isn't "immersed" in the usual sense anyway) and the one player who is currently exerting narrative control, nothing has changed. It's still something handed to them, described by someone else, that they have to respond to. Events are just as out of Player B's direct control whether they're described by the GM or by Player A. So it's really not as big of a deal as it seems.

Representation and immersion are some of the unique things RPGs have going for them. And the surprise of something hidden from the start is different from a surprise retconned in. But I think one of the bigger issues is maintaining challenge in a coop RPG.

Quote

Quote from: Superfluous Crowa heist movie where every character has a purpose and gets time in the spotlight

Specialization can lead to encounters where one player gets to win it alone while everyone else sits around uselessly. Unless, of course, the encounter is constructed so that each of the specialists has their task in it and each gets a time to shine. Everyone contributes, but nobody can win it alone.
In other words, it's a well-designed, well-balanced encounter. :grin:

[/quote]
I tend to prefer my engagement-balance and niche-protection at the adventure scale. Vreeg seems to want his campaign scaled.

I like rolling because it is faster and less meta-gamey than point buy. I hate rolling because it often leads to character imbalance.

In my experience rolling leads to faster immersion while point buy leads to superior characters.

I was probably not as precise with terminology as I should have been. It's difficult because some of these terms are themselves the subject of lengthy debates-- honestly, I'd really rather this not devolve into a debate about semantics, unless something is really unclear. I usually would define "immersion" (and I have seen others define this way as well) in a more active and general sense, like "thinking about things in terms of what the character would do or think." I think my point still stands, though, because this isn't something a bored player is likely to be doing.

Quote from: beejazzThis is why the world should have mixed level opponents, and methods of finding out who/what is where in advance. As a rule, if there is more to do than the players can do, they can proactively sort out for themselves what to engage with.

Yes, I agree. As long as challenges appropriate to the characters' level exist and can be discerned using techniques available to the characters (and aren't blocked in by things they simply cannot handle) this is a good solution.

Quote from: beejazzThere is sometimes an issue with forcing a player to decide a lot of things they really don't care about. It's why people get sick of point buy.

Yes, and that's why I mentioned "the choice to not have a choice." Randomization can be an option. I just don't think it's a good idea for it to be the only option.

Quote from: beejazzAs for the relationship with immersion (as opposed to engagement) I think it could be argued that your character didn't decide their stats, so the player shouldn't either.

Arguing that just leads to absurd conclusions like "Your character didn't decide to be born in a certain time and place, so players shouldn't get to decide what game or setting that they play in." What the players do or do not get to decide should be determined by the game's mechanics.

Quote from: beejazzRealism is a whole other can of worms from engagement or immersion.

It is a different issue, but not completely. On the topic of immersion, if you say, essentially, that "information available to the player should be the same as information available to the character," I'll point out that there will always be vastly less information available to the player simply because the full spectrum of five (or however many) senses and the thought processes created by lifetime of experience actually living in that world simply cannot be condensed in any reasonable way.

Beejazz' post is greatly appreciated and there is a lot of good ground covered there.  I am coming home tonight and actually tried to post earlier and lost it due to connectiviy issues.

And I think, based on SParkles earlier comments, she gets the concept of Immersion just fine, and it IS actually, from many perspectives, an ingredient in many games to enhance engagement.  
So I agree it is one of many ingredients a game designer could use to create engagement.  One of the more important ones in a role playing game, however.  As Beejazz remarks on, Immersion is considered by most designers as the opposite of Metagaming.  And this is important, because from this standpoint, a player is who is playing from an immersed position is considered such if they are playing more within their role, and considered Metagaming if they are using information and conjecturing from outside their role.  From this particular and not complete position, the more immersed a player is, the more that are playng the role....or Roleplaying.
SO while this is not the same as player engagement, and there are other tools that can be used to maintain interest and connection and enjoyment..Immersion ranks pretty highly the more the game is based on playing a role.

Similarly, the idea of 'Setting-reactive' versus 'Game-Proactive', in terms of the players behavior, is mirrored by earlier work in roleplaying in the psychological field.  IN Roleplay therapy, you partially judge the value and success of the subject's roleplay by whether they are reacting to the situation versus proactively trying to work from the outside in. Your engagement vs immersion comments are important in chargen.  So really, a player really can't feel more immersed by taking a more proactive vs reactive chargen position.  The real choice is where along the continuum you want to place the immersion and the player engagement to try to get a maximum of both, because the goal seems to be to get as much of possible of both.  A player who decides many of their details may fee more connected or more satidfied with that character; i don't think they will feel more immersed...but if they like the character and concept more, they may find later, in-game immersion easier.  So really, this balance is very make-or-break for a game.

Quote from: SParkleTo expect that RPG characters be bound by a strong adherence to what they could "really" do is of dubious value when there are so many other limitations that do not apply to real people.

Umm actually, the amount a player is bound to an adherence to what the character could 'really' do is a pretty decent shorthand definition for Immersion.  Bravo.  The statement above, however, when seen from this perspective seems to sum up your real point.  Cuttting through all the crap about player choice and rolling dice and randomization and saying what can or cannot be true, The above quote says, as I read it, that Immersion is of dubious value to you. and the rest of the para, about giving more narrative control despite the dissociated mechanic, ices it.  Which is fine, if true.  If I am wrong and this boiling down of your position is incorrect or incomplete, I'll be back on later.     If This comes across as in any way less than kindly and constructively meant, I humbly apologize; your intellect and ability are not in question as they are superlative, as is most of our assembled company.  I am writing on the fly.

Quote from: sparkletwist
I was probably not as precise with terminology as I should have been. It's difficult because some of these terms are themselves the subject of lengthy debates-- honestly, I'd really rather this not devolve into a debate about semantics, unless something is really unclear. I usually would define "immersion" (and I have seen others define this way as well) in a more active and general sense, like "thinking about things in terms of what the character would do or think." I think my point still stands, though, because this isn't something a bored player is likely to be doing.

I'm not a stickler about objective definitions or jargon, as long as terms are clear for the purpose of discussion. It's more important to me that the concepts behind the terms don't get muddied.

By saying that engagement and immersion are different, I am by no means saying that they don't feed on each other, or that only one is necessary, or that they are oil and water or anything like that. An engaged player is necessary for immersion on some level, while an immersion isn't entirely necessary for the sake of engagement. Roleplaying games have many aspects, and playing a role isn't the be all end all.

Quote

Quote from: beejazzThere is sometimes an issue with forcing a player to decide a lot of things they really don't care about. It's why people get sick of point buy.

Yes, and that's why I mentioned "the choice to not have a choice." Randomization can be an option. I just don't think it's a good idea for it to be the only option.

Doing both in this fashion kind of still incentivizes point buy if point buy characters tend to be better (and they will).

Quote

Quote from: beejazzAs for the relationship with immersion (as opposed to engagement) I think it could be argued that your character didn't decide their stats, so the player shouldn't either.

Arguing that just leads to absurd conclusions like "Your character didn't decide to be born in a certain time and place, so players shouldn't get to decide what game or setting that they play in." What the players do or do not get to decide should be determined by the game's mechanics.

As I said, I'm no hardliner. But the line falls in different places for different people and different games. It doesn't "lead to" anything. There's no slippery slope here.

Quote

Quote from: beejazzRealism is a whole other can of worms from engagement or immersion.

It is a different issue, but not completely. On the topic of immersion, if you say, essentially, that "information available to the player should be the same as information available to the character," I'll point out that there will always be vastly less information available to the player simply because the full spectrum of five (or however many) senses and the thought processes created by lifetime of experience actually living in that world simply cannot be condensed in any reasonable way.

That's just narrative efficiency given the limitations of the medium. Personally, I'd rather neither hear the chirp of every bird nor decide myself what the plot-relevant details are (say, deciding there's a rabbit to hunt instead of looking for one). It's a non-issue that doesn't need solving, so there are no worthwhile trade offs one could make to solve it.