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 coming! 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
*TTRPGs General
Game Mechanics And Player Agency
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="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7742714" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Never did I figure that my use of "note" would draw such a keen reaction. I was merely stating a clarification on my statement it wouldn't be taken in an unintended manner.</p><p></p><p>That said, and ignoring that you say narrative consequences are a given after asking if players can just declare force-field to negate narrative consequences, there's some things we agree on here and some we don't. Primarily on the "don't" side is that NPC and PCs are equivalent structures and should be impacted by mechanics in the same way. They should not, and aren't, even in the systems you're referencing (Cortex+, Fate, etc.).</p><p></p><p>First and foremost, there's a keen difference between an NPC and a PC, and that's represented in the DM/player role distribution. This distribution varies across game systems and styles, but, generally, the DM has the duty of framing scenes and presenting backstory and the player has the duty of declaring actions within the scene. Systems differ on the resolution, be it subject to DM review or only mechanical resolution, but regardless of where on that spectrum the DM usually retains the power to narrate the results according to the resolution method. This feeds back into the frame/declare/resolve paradigm. This is broadly true in 5e, 4e, 3e, Cortex+, PbtA, etc. The DM frames, the player acts, and the situation resolves. I'm intentionally ignoring games where the players can frame or where there's large amount of narrative sharing between player because those really don't use mechanics like what we're talking about here for resolution of conflicts. There's some, but they're niche and not broadly applicable.</p><p></p><p>That being said, the difference between PCs and NPC becomes more clear because of the positions they occupy in the above. To clarify, the difference is that NPC action declaration break the frame/act/resolve paradigm because now the entirety of the resolution is on the DM side of the equation -- the NPC is standing in for the player in the act portion and this means that the DM now has authority to frame and declare the action (and thereby exert disproportionate force on the resolution by dint of perfect knowledge of the variables). The player is without choice in the matter. This is fine, for narration, but making this process appear to be gameplay is a farce. This is clear in 5e play, if you assume Diplomacy single checks can force PC actions -- the DM sets the stage for the scene, introduces the challenge, has the NPC declare actions to resolve the challenge, and then narrates the results to the players. No room for the players, here.</p><p></p><p>In other systems, with more robust social combat mechanics, it's fine, though, but that's not because we're accepting that the mechanics affect players and NPCs the same (they don't), but because those systems have built in choice mechanics for the players to exercise. The process is the same -- the DM frames a scene with a social challenge, the PCs elect actions to counter/mitigate that challenge, and then the resolution occurs and the results are presented. Even then, most of these system have a fourth step which again allows the players to bring PC resources to bear to mitigate the challenge. Regardless, the stakes for the challenge are set and the PCs then have choices on how they are going to resist the challenge. For instance, if the scene is set for the King to try to persuade the PCs to undertake a quest, that challenge is framed with clear stakes -- what happens if either side wins -- and the players are free to add resources to modify that challenge or avoid it or mitigate it. Then, once all those resources are declared and the final stakes are set, the resolution mechanics kick in. The player has already had many choices on the issue, so they aren't at the whim of the DM like in the 5e example. Even if the resolution goes against the players, most of these systems have options to accept a different cost rather than acceeding to the resolution (mental stess is Fate's, stress is how Blades in the Dark does it, etc.). This kind of play leave player choice intact and has the players accepting the stakes of the contest before rolling. It differs from the 5e example because of these aspects -- the system Fate uses explicitly hedges against removing player choices about how mechanics work even while using those mechanics to increase drama and create story. It's well done.</p><p></p><p>But, to return to the difference between PCs and NPCs, the NPCs don't have the same levels of resources or even the same options on how to expend resources that the PCs do. NPCs are bound tightly to the resolution, and rarely have the ability to swap to a different costing to avoid the resolution. This is because the point of the NPCs is not to be the focus of the story, but to aid in telling the story. </p><p></p><p>And that's the key, for me -- PCs are the ONLY way the players interact with the game. NPCs are one of many many authorities that the DM controls for the game. Claiming that PCs must be susceptible to the same mechanics as NPCs is saying that the PCs are unimportant in the game, because there are so many more NPCs and the DM has 100% control of them all. Rather, I subscribe to the idea that NPCs are just a tool to frame scenes for the game and are there to provide foils to the PCs, not usurp them. The Prince that wants his daughter rescued is a challenge to the PCs, not a controller of them. If the PCs decide this isn't a challenge they care for, why am I going to force them to go along using a mechanic when it's clear that the players don't want to do that? Do I, as DM, have the right to decide what the players want to play? Rhetorical questions, my answers are 'I wouldn't, that's bad' and 'No, I do not.'</p><p></p><p> [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s statement that it's rude of the players to ignore what the DM has prepped by trying to ignore the hook and so he's justified in using mechanics to force them to bite the hook is a social contract problem being addressed in the game -- he should, instead, be talking to his players as players and finding out what assumption mismatches are going on at the table instead of relying on his ability to force a check and tell the players what they're going to play. This is basic game social interaction 101 -- deal with player problems directly with the players and not in the game.</p><p></p><p>And, again, as a note (heh), I used to be on the 'NPCs and PCs should be subject to the mechanics equally' side of this. I came around when I realized that my real issue was trying to recover from failure points in game. If I had a great scenario lined up but it hinged on the PCs taking the quest, and, for whatever reason, I did a bad job selling it, then I was out time and had no prep. So, I thought it should be right that the NPCs should be able to lie/convince/whatever using mechanics because it rescued my plot. But, it led to increased reluctance on the player's part to go along. So, I stopped doing it. And, in a fit of mental dissonance, I still ascribed to the idea that mechanics were a level field even as I ceased actually playing that way and avoided it like the plague. It was a discussion here, with @Iserth (which got heated), that I finally recognized that I was arguing for a position I didn't agree with anymore (and that some time after that thread). I got to thinking, and realized that there's a huge power mismatch in using mechanics against PCs in the same way they're used against NPCs, and that I didn't agree with that power mismatch and, further, I wasn't playing that way anymore either. So, yeah, just taking a moment to point out that I fully understand the position you're taking, I've held it, and I've since rejected it.</p><p></p><p>ON a different note, I believe you asked what's the point of NPC skills if they aren't used against PCs. That's easy. They are used against PCs, but only in to set DCs and/or contested checks. They're also useful against other NPCs. If, for instance, I have a group of orcs that the party is facing, and the party barbarian attempts to intimidate the orcs, then I'm going to use their WIS saves as a DC. Let's say the orcs fail as a group, but their leader, an orog, succeeds. The orog can then attempt to regain control of the orcs by using his intimidate to try to convince them other orcs that he's the scarier of the two. This isn't something I think I is uncertain as a DM, so I'll roll the Orog's intimidate against the orcs. Results can vary - a failure means the orcs back down, a success means the orcs attack (or whatever). Optionally, I can declare that the orog leader is going to try to rebut the barbarian's attempt directly and have them roll opposed Intimidates to determine who's more successful.</p><p></p><p>Diplomacy is an excellent skill for the spurned Prince to use after the players refuse to rescue his daughter. A roll sets a nice DC that the players will now have to overcome to receive any aid from anyone that knows of the Prince's displeasure with the party. Want to buy some horses? You get to contend with the Prince's diplomacy roll as the Stable owner read the proclamation the Prince sent out declaring the party non-grata. Is the stable owner more concerned with helping you, even though he likes you, or with not being seen going against the Prince?</p><p></p><p>NPC skills are great, and very useful, even if I'll never initiate a roll against PCs that the PCs will be bound to. It will always be as a DC or opposed roll to what the PCs are trying to do. This goes for the ninjas, too -- the PCs set the circumstance as to how they're keeping watch and I test that against the ninja's stealth skill. If the ninja succeeds, the next framing will have them at an advantage. If they fail, the PCs get the advantage. I don't need to tell the players what their PCs think or do, I just need to present the new framing with the new situation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7742714, member: 16814"] Never did I figure that my use of "note" would draw such a keen reaction. I was merely stating a clarification on my statement it wouldn't be taken in an unintended manner. That said, and ignoring that you say narrative consequences are a given after asking if players can just declare force-field to negate narrative consequences, there's some things we agree on here and some we don't. Primarily on the "don't" side is that NPC and PCs are equivalent structures and should be impacted by mechanics in the same way. They should not, and aren't, even in the systems you're referencing (Cortex+, Fate, etc.). First and foremost, there's a keen difference between an NPC and a PC, and that's represented in the DM/player role distribution. This distribution varies across game systems and styles, but, generally, the DM has the duty of framing scenes and presenting backstory and the player has the duty of declaring actions within the scene. Systems differ on the resolution, be it subject to DM review or only mechanical resolution, but regardless of where on that spectrum the DM usually retains the power to narrate the results according to the resolution method. This feeds back into the frame/declare/resolve paradigm. This is broadly true in 5e, 4e, 3e, Cortex+, PbtA, etc. The DM frames, the player acts, and the situation resolves. I'm intentionally ignoring games where the players can frame or where there's large amount of narrative sharing between player because those really don't use mechanics like what we're talking about here for resolution of conflicts. There's some, but they're niche and not broadly applicable. That being said, the difference between PCs and NPC becomes more clear because of the positions they occupy in the above. To clarify, the difference is that NPC action declaration break the frame/act/resolve paradigm because now the entirety of the resolution is on the DM side of the equation -- the NPC is standing in for the player in the act portion and this means that the DM now has authority to frame and declare the action (and thereby exert disproportionate force on the resolution by dint of perfect knowledge of the variables). The player is without choice in the matter. This is fine, for narration, but making this process appear to be gameplay is a farce. This is clear in 5e play, if you assume Diplomacy single checks can force PC actions -- the DM sets the stage for the scene, introduces the challenge, has the NPC declare actions to resolve the challenge, and then narrates the results to the players. No room for the players, here. In other systems, with more robust social combat mechanics, it's fine, though, but that's not because we're accepting that the mechanics affect players and NPCs the same (they don't), but because those systems have built in choice mechanics for the players to exercise. The process is the same -- the DM frames a scene with a social challenge, the PCs elect actions to counter/mitigate that challenge, and then the resolution occurs and the results are presented. Even then, most of these system have a fourth step which again allows the players to bring PC resources to bear to mitigate the challenge. Regardless, the stakes for the challenge are set and the PCs then have choices on how they are going to resist the challenge. For instance, if the scene is set for the King to try to persuade the PCs to undertake a quest, that challenge is framed with clear stakes -- what happens if either side wins -- and the players are free to add resources to modify that challenge or avoid it or mitigate it. Then, once all those resources are declared and the final stakes are set, the resolution mechanics kick in. The player has already had many choices on the issue, so they aren't at the whim of the DM like in the 5e example. Even if the resolution goes against the players, most of these systems have options to accept a different cost rather than acceeding to the resolution (mental stess is Fate's, stress is how Blades in the Dark does it, etc.). This kind of play leave player choice intact and has the players accepting the stakes of the contest before rolling. It differs from the 5e example because of these aspects -- the system Fate uses explicitly hedges against removing player choices about how mechanics work even while using those mechanics to increase drama and create story. It's well done. But, to return to the difference between PCs and NPCs, the NPCs don't have the same levels of resources or even the same options on how to expend resources that the PCs do. NPCs are bound tightly to the resolution, and rarely have the ability to swap to a different costing to avoid the resolution. This is because the point of the NPCs is not to be the focus of the story, but to aid in telling the story. And that's the key, for me -- PCs are the ONLY way the players interact with the game. NPCs are one of many many authorities that the DM controls for the game. Claiming that PCs must be susceptible to the same mechanics as NPCs is saying that the PCs are unimportant in the game, because there are so many more NPCs and the DM has 100% control of them all. Rather, I subscribe to the idea that NPCs are just a tool to frame scenes for the game and are there to provide foils to the PCs, not usurp them. The Prince that wants his daughter rescued is a challenge to the PCs, not a controller of them. If the PCs decide this isn't a challenge they care for, why am I going to force them to go along using a mechanic when it's clear that the players don't want to do that? Do I, as DM, have the right to decide what the players want to play? Rhetorical questions, my answers are 'I wouldn't, that's bad' and 'No, I do not.' [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s statement that it's rude of the players to ignore what the DM has prepped by trying to ignore the hook and so he's justified in using mechanics to force them to bite the hook is a social contract problem being addressed in the game -- he should, instead, be talking to his players as players and finding out what assumption mismatches are going on at the table instead of relying on his ability to force a check and tell the players what they're going to play. This is basic game social interaction 101 -- deal with player problems directly with the players and not in the game. And, again, as a note (heh), I used to be on the 'NPCs and PCs should be subject to the mechanics equally' side of this. I came around when I realized that my real issue was trying to recover from failure points in game. If I had a great scenario lined up but it hinged on the PCs taking the quest, and, for whatever reason, I did a bad job selling it, then I was out time and had no prep. So, I thought it should be right that the NPCs should be able to lie/convince/whatever using mechanics because it rescued my plot. But, it led to increased reluctance on the player's part to go along. So, I stopped doing it. And, in a fit of mental dissonance, I still ascribed to the idea that mechanics were a level field even as I ceased actually playing that way and avoided it like the plague. It was a discussion here, with @Iserth (which got heated), that I finally recognized that I was arguing for a position I didn't agree with anymore (and that some time after that thread). I got to thinking, and realized that there's a huge power mismatch in using mechanics against PCs in the same way they're used against NPCs, and that I didn't agree with that power mismatch and, further, I wasn't playing that way anymore either. So, yeah, just taking a moment to point out that I fully understand the position you're taking, I've held it, and I've since rejected it. ON a different note, I believe you asked what's the point of NPC skills if they aren't used against PCs. That's easy. They are used against PCs, but only in to set DCs and/or contested checks. They're also useful against other NPCs. If, for instance, I have a group of orcs that the party is facing, and the party barbarian attempts to intimidate the orcs, then I'm going to use their WIS saves as a DC. Let's say the orcs fail as a group, but their leader, an orog, succeeds. The orog can then attempt to regain control of the orcs by using his intimidate to try to convince them other orcs that he's the scarier of the two. This isn't something I think I is uncertain as a DM, so I'll roll the Orog's intimidate against the orcs. Results can vary - a failure means the orcs back down, a success means the orcs attack (or whatever). Optionally, I can declare that the orog leader is going to try to rebut the barbarian's attempt directly and have them roll opposed Intimidates to determine who's more successful. Diplomacy is an excellent skill for the spurned Prince to use after the players refuse to rescue his daughter. A roll sets a nice DC that the players will now have to overcome to receive any aid from anyone that knows of the Prince's displeasure with the party. Want to buy some horses? You get to contend with the Prince's diplomacy roll as the Stable owner read the proclamation the Prince sent out declaring the party non-grata. Is the stable owner more concerned with helping you, even though he likes you, or with not being seen going against the Prince? NPC skills are great, and very useful, even if I'll never initiate a roll against PCs that the PCs will be bound to. It will always be as a DC or opposed roll to what the PCs are trying to do. This goes for the ninjas, too -- the PCs set the circumstance as to how they're keeping watch and I test that against the ninja's stealth skill. If the ninja succeeds, the next framing will have them at an advantage. If they fail, the PCs get the advantage. I don't need to tell the players what their PCs think or do, I just need to present the new framing with the new situation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Game Mechanics And Player Agency
Top