Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Elephant in the room: rogue and fighter dailies.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5927588" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>OK. My knowledge of RQ stops around the 1990 imprints. (I mean, I know Mongoose is publishing it, but I haven't looked at their version beyond the reviews.)</p><p></p><p>I think what you say about different results from given techniques is true. Rolemaster character gen is one example I'm pretty familiar with - when a player levels up his/her PC, and gives it a rank in Seduction, that can be (i) a reflection of action that happened in the lead-up to levelling and hence a type of "exploration of situation and character", or (ii) a reflection of a desire to build a genre-emulating PC, or (iii) a sign that the player anticipates the opportunity to get some wins out of social skills in the coming level, or (iv) a flag to the GM from the player that s/he wants romantic situations to figure prominently in what's coming up next level. I've GMed Rolemaster players taking all of these approaches (sometimes the same player taking multiple approaches, sometimes even across different skills at the same level-up). And I've also seen these different approaches cause arguments to break out on the old ICE message boards.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, my major disagreement with Forge theory is that the "official" definition of narrativism - as generation of thematically satisfying story - is too narrow. You can see the narrowness when it comes to actually looking at games. Edwards, correctly in my view, identifies The Dying Earth as tending to support narrativist play - but the Dying Earth isn't particularly about producing thematically satisfying story. It's more about a certain type of ironic and cynical humour.</p><p></p><p>My other difference from the Forge is practical rather than theoretical - I read their stuff and then use it to help me improve my GMing of games that they would laught at! - Rolemaster and 4e, for example. I'm happy with avant garde theory, but my taste in RPG tropes and mechanics is pretty conventional.</p><p></p><p>That sounds like hard work. Is it OK to ask why? Was there something about 4e that was more appealing than the classic RQ-ish games themselves?</p><p></p><p>I'm a bit of a modularity sceptic, but won't be sorry to be proved wrong.</p><p></p><p>The biggest thing warning flag for me in the playtest is that there is not the least hint of an approach to play where "winning" isn't crucial - or, to put it a bit less crudely, where the stakes are multi-dimensionsal. On page 3 of the DM Guidelines they seem to assume the exact opposite - that stakes are single-dimensionsal - when they talk about encouraging creativity and engaging the fiction by making those sorts of solutions the easiest way to succeed.</p><p></p><p>Part of the attractiveness of games like RQ and RM - at least in my experience - is that they encourage a type of detail in character building that then comes to be reflected in the setting and situation, so there are often multiple viable approaches (social isn't obviously inferior to combat, for example) and situations are less likely to be obviously zero-sum in relation both to means and to ends.</p><p></p><p>Skill challenges and similar sorts of meta-gamey conflict resolution mechanics are a completely different way to achieve non-single-dimensionality. As a simple example, if you set up a situation in which the low-CHA, no social skills dwarf fighter PC will look a complete tool unless he says something (eg he's being gratuitously insulted by an NPC), then the player will probably have his/her PC say something - and probably fail the skill check, which then lets the GM introduce new complications, <em>but these don't have to mean that the PC failed to save face</em>. Because of the metagame element to this sort of action resolution, the GM can introduce a complication in a different dimension. (In my 4e session on the weekend, when the dwarf fighter-cleric PC failed his Diplomacy check bringing news to the Baron of the end of the war the Baron didn't get angry - he collapsed, overwrought and unable to sustain himself now that the immediate need to do so had passed.)</p><p></p><p>Whereas when I look at the playtest I see PCs who are narrow in their detail, suggesting a narrow setting and narrow points of engagement with situation, and GM advice that is similiarly narrow and single-dimensioned in its focus. The medusa <em>could</em> be a great encounter, but I don't see the GM advice or the tools - whether on the PC sheets, or in the action resolution mechanics and guidelines - to make it happen.</p><p></p><p>And if the answer is "well, that sort of stuff is going to come in the modules", where exactly are these going to be bolted on?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5927588, member: 42582"] OK. My knowledge of RQ stops around the 1990 imprints. (I mean, I know Mongoose is publishing it, but I haven't looked at their version beyond the reviews.) I think what you say about different results from given techniques is true. Rolemaster character gen is one example I'm pretty familiar with - when a player levels up his/her PC, and gives it a rank in Seduction, that can be (i) a reflection of action that happened in the lead-up to levelling and hence a type of "exploration of situation and character", or (ii) a reflection of a desire to build a genre-emulating PC, or (iii) a sign that the player anticipates the opportunity to get some wins out of social skills in the coming level, or (iv) a flag to the GM from the player that s/he wants romantic situations to figure prominently in what's coming up next level. I've GMed Rolemaster players taking all of these approaches (sometimes the same player taking multiple approaches, sometimes even across different skills at the same level-up). And I've also seen these different approaches cause arguments to break out on the old ICE message boards. Anyway, my major disagreement with Forge theory is that the "official" definition of narrativism - as generation of thematically satisfying story - is too narrow. You can see the narrowness when it comes to actually looking at games. Edwards, correctly in my view, identifies The Dying Earth as tending to support narrativist play - but the Dying Earth isn't particularly about producing thematically satisfying story. It's more about a certain type of ironic and cynical humour. My other difference from the Forge is practical rather than theoretical - I read their stuff and then use it to help me improve my GMing of games that they would laught at! - Rolemaster and 4e, for example. I'm happy with avant garde theory, but my taste in RPG tropes and mechanics is pretty conventional. That sounds like hard work. Is it OK to ask why? Was there something about 4e that was more appealing than the classic RQ-ish games themselves? I'm a bit of a modularity sceptic, but won't be sorry to be proved wrong. The biggest thing warning flag for me in the playtest is that there is not the least hint of an approach to play where "winning" isn't crucial - or, to put it a bit less crudely, where the stakes are multi-dimensionsal. On page 3 of the DM Guidelines they seem to assume the exact opposite - that stakes are single-dimensionsal - when they talk about encouraging creativity and engaging the fiction by making those sorts of solutions the easiest way to succeed. Part of the attractiveness of games like RQ and RM - at least in my experience - is that they encourage a type of detail in character building that then comes to be reflected in the setting and situation, so there are often multiple viable approaches (social isn't obviously inferior to combat, for example) and situations are less likely to be obviously zero-sum in relation both to means and to ends. Skill challenges and similar sorts of meta-gamey conflict resolution mechanics are a completely different way to achieve non-single-dimensionality. As a simple example, if you set up a situation in which the low-CHA, no social skills dwarf fighter PC will look a complete tool unless he says something (eg he's being gratuitously insulted by an NPC), then the player will probably have his/her PC say something - and probably fail the skill check, which then lets the GM introduce new complications, [I]but these don't have to mean that the PC failed to save face[/I]. Because of the metagame element to this sort of action resolution, the GM can introduce a complication in a different dimension. (In my 4e session on the weekend, when the dwarf fighter-cleric PC failed his Diplomacy check bringing news to the Baron of the end of the war the Baron didn't get angry - he collapsed, overwrought and unable to sustain himself now that the immediate need to do so had passed.) Whereas when I look at the playtest I see PCs who are narrow in their detail, suggesting a narrow setting and narrow points of engagement with situation, and GM advice that is similiarly narrow and single-dimensioned in its focus. The medusa [I]could[/I] be a great encounter, but I don't see the GM advice or the tools - whether on the PC sheets, or in the action resolution mechanics and guidelines - to make it happen. And if the answer is "well, that sort of stuff is going to come in the modules", where exactly are these going to be bolted on? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Elephant in the room: rogue and fighter dailies.
Top