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
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 7744538" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>There's no disputing the figures, but on the other hand this is a thread in General RPG. If we have to frame all our discussion, examples, analysis etc through that one system, what's even the point of having a non-D&D sub-forum?</p><p></p><p>And to follow on with a clarification: I know that you have experience across a range of non-D&D RPGs, and are bringing that to bear in this discussion. It's the seeminglykl relentless treatment of D&D as not just dominant in the market, but <em>normatively</em> determinative of proper and legitimate RPGing, that I find a bit frustrating.</p><p></p><p>The play examples I referred to involved an instance of group 2 (my friends and I playing in someone's home). I get the impression that Luke Crane's own experiences with BW probably involve a lot of play with friends also. (I don't know the guy or anything, but that's how his examples and advice seem to read.)</p><p></p><p>But I find even friends, when they are inhabiting their PCs, can get into disagreements about what to do next that are hard to resolve.</p><p></p><p>That said, I agree with you that different tables will want to do things differently. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] prefers to let the debate continue as long as it takes to resolve without mechanical mediation; I don't (and it sounds like you don't either).</p><p></p><p>In the context of this thread, what I was trying to do with my post was show how social mechanics can work in practice, in a way that is consistent with player agency (just like casting lots would be), reinforces the connection between the PCs as they are in the fiction and the outcome of the debate at the table (which is something [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] especially has emphasised as important to him), and serves two practically useful purposes - (1) keeping play moving while (2) allowing the PCs to be less of a hive-mind rather than more of one.</p><p></p><p>In systems that favour party play (D&D and Traveller are both A-grade examples of this), the players in my games understand that they have to make compromises etc to stay together. But that doesn't stop them having PCs with different and sometimes even opposing goals and ideals. (If they didn't, there would be no need to compromise!)</p><p></p><p>When I say they don't have to squib, what I mean is that they don't have to forsake their ideals or concede that another PC's goal is the correct one. Rather, the resolution at the table corresponds, in the fiction, to a compromise - "OK, we'll go your way first before we do my thing."</p><p></p><p>Compromise is always plagued by a first-mover problem: even if both parties can see that a compromise is required, each has an incentive to hold out and let the other be the first-mover (who thereby risks yielding more than the hold-out). In real life, people overcome the first-mover problem all the time through a mixture of social cues, pratcial imperatives ("I haven't got all day, so let's just get on with it!"), etc. At the table I think these cues aren't necessarily present - the same featues of RPGing that make it much easier for players to be brave with their PCs than it is to be brave in real life make it easier to hold-out than in real life.</p><p></p><p>The mechanics help deal with this.</p><p></p><p>The character- and really, in this context, we're talking about the <em>player</em> - can always think again. No one's mind has been changed about what's important and what's not - it's a decision that's been taken, not a conversion that's occurred.</p><p></p><p>Burning Wheel has formal rules that govern the way in which a Duel of Wits is binding, and how the outcome may be challenged. The ad hoc systems I've used in 4e and Classic Traveller - being ad hoc - don't have formal rules. The answer to the question "WHen is it OK to go back on an agreement?" is the same in this context as in any other - ie it depends.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7744538, member: 42582"] There's no disputing the figures, but on the other hand this is a thread in General RPG. If we have to frame all our discussion, examples, analysis etc through that one system, what's even the point of having a non-D&D sub-forum? And to follow on with a clarification: I know that you have experience across a range of non-D&D RPGs, and are bringing that to bear in this discussion. It's the seeminglykl relentless treatment of D&D as not just dominant in the market, but [I]normatively[/I] determinative of proper and legitimate RPGing, that I find a bit frustrating. The play examples I referred to involved an instance of group 2 (my friends and I playing in someone's home). I get the impression that Luke Crane's own experiences with BW probably involve a lot of play with friends also. (I don't know the guy or anything, but that's how his examples and advice seem to read.) But I find even friends, when they are inhabiting their PCs, can get into disagreements about what to do next that are hard to resolve. That said, I agree with you that different tables will want to do things differently. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] prefers to let the debate continue as long as it takes to resolve without mechanical mediation; I don't (and it sounds like you don't either). In the context of this thread, what I was trying to do with my post was show how social mechanics can work in practice, in a way that is consistent with player agency (just like casting lots would be), reinforces the connection between the PCs as they are in the fiction and the outcome of the debate at the table (which is something [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] especially has emphasised as important to him), and serves two practically useful purposes - (1) keeping play moving while (2) allowing the PCs to be less of a hive-mind rather than more of one. In systems that favour party play (D&D and Traveller are both A-grade examples of this), the players in my games understand that they have to make compromises etc to stay together. But that doesn't stop them having PCs with different and sometimes even opposing goals and ideals. (If they didn't, there would be no need to compromise!) When I say they don't have to squib, what I mean is that they don't have to forsake their ideals or concede that another PC's goal is the correct one. Rather, the resolution at the table corresponds, in the fiction, to a compromise - "OK, we'll go your way first before we do my thing." Compromise is always plagued by a first-mover problem: even if both parties can see that a compromise is required, each has an incentive to hold out and let the other be the first-mover (who thereby risks yielding more than the hold-out). In real life, people overcome the first-mover problem all the time through a mixture of social cues, pratcial imperatives ("I haven't got all day, so let's just get on with it!"), etc. At the table I think these cues aren't necessarily present - the same featues of RPGing that make it much easier for players to be brave with their PCs than it is to be brave in real life make it easier to hold-out than in real life. The mechanics help deal with this. The character- and really, in this context, we're talking about the [I]player[/I] - can always think again. No one's mind has been changed about what's important and what's not - it's a decision that's been taken, not a conversion that's occurred. Burning Wheel has formal rules that govern the way in which a Duel of Wits is binding, and how the outcome may be challenged. The ad hoc systems I've used in 4e and Classic Traveller - being ad hoc - don't have formal rules. The answer to the question "WHen is it OK to go back on an agreement?" is the same in this context as in any other - ie it depends. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Game Mechanics And Player Agency
Top