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
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
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="Campbell" data-source="post: 7080373" data-attributes="member: 16586"><p>That's all you really have with the design of most mainstream game designs anyway. Consider a traditional perception or knowledge check. Here are the judgement calls a GM in a mainstream game generally makes in order to resolve them:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Content of the Fiction</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If a Check is Called For.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Difficulty Class of the Check.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Any Bonuses or Penalties That Apply.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Whether to Reveal the Difficulty Class If It Is Even Real.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">What Success Means.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">What Failure Means.</li> </ul><p></p><p>The entire body of the rules remains firmly under the control of the GM. Even if a check is successful there is no guarantee that it will provide real information you can use rather than a chance for the GM to impart bits of world building or color. It implies a certain amount of real machinery that gives some players solace, but is ultimately illusory. Pay No Attention To The GM Behind The Curtain. It might make you feel better about what happens, but it is just as subject to GM judgement calls as a more fiction oriented approach. It also makes it more difficult to see what is going on from the player's perspective, especially when we have a culture that does not see GMs and other players as equals at the game table. We might be able to use the rules as a form of coded language to indirectly address the fiction, but I feel that is all we are really doing.</p><p></p><p>I feel like a directive like <strong>always say what honesty demands</strong> that is every bit as much part of the system in use has the potential to have far greater impact. It shifts the cultural fabric of the game to one where players are allowed to expect principled decision making from their GMs and see where they are acting against the shared interests of the game. Part of what I enjoy about running a game with explicitly stated principles is that those principles become a measure by which the other players can hold my feet to the fire. It allows us to course correct and helps to keep me honest. Also when we keep things closer to the fiction it becomes far easier to see what is actually going on and tell if my framing was off.</p><p></p><p>I am not saying there is no use for mechanisms. We know how to structure mechanisms that can have a stronger impact on the social dynamic at the table. The specific questions that <strong>read a charged situation</strong> obliges a GM to answer truthfully if you succeed does far more to encourage GMs to impart useful information. The way Blades in the Dark represents actions according to <strong>effect</strong> and <strong>position</strong>(risk level) encourages transparency, negotiation and powerful expectations of what results should look like in the fiction. Although I am not really that much of a fan of explicit stake setting and intent based resolution much of the time it does create powerful expectations that enable more informed decision making.</p><p></p><p>I would add that I believe we should be careful that whatever game we use does not short circuit skilled play of fictional position. I think <strong>Things On Character Sheets</strong> can serve to increase our interests in the fiction and relate it to us in a way that can more effectively be gamed, but the beating heart of any roleplaying game should reside in meaningful exploration of the fiction. I also have no significant issue with judgement calls. I just think we should be applying our judgements in principled ways that enable greater player investment in the game and impactful decision making.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Campbell, post: 7080373, member: 16586"] That's all you really have with the design of most mainstream game designs anyway. Consider a traditional perception or knowledge check. Here are the judgement calls a GM in a mainstream game generally makes in order to resolve them: [LIST] [*]The Content of the Fiction [*]If a Check is Called For. [*]The Difficulty Class of the Check. [*]Any Bonuses or Penalties That Apply. [*]Whether to Reveal the Difficulty Class If It Is Even Real. [*]What Success Means. [*]What Failure Means. [/LIST] The entire body of the rules remains firmly under the control of the GM. Even if a check is successful there is no guarantee that it will provide real information you can use rather than a chance for the GM to impart bits of world building or color. It implies a certain amount of real machinery that gives some players solace, but is ultimately illusory. Pay No Attention To The GM Behind The Curtain. It might make you feel better about what happens, but it is just as subject to GM judgement calls as a more fiction oriented approach. It also makes it more difficult to see what is going on from the player's perspective, especially when we have a culture that does not see GMs and other players as equals at the game table. We might be able to use the rules as a form of coded language to indirectly address the fiction, but I feel that is all we are really doing. I feel like a directive like [B]always say what honesty demands[/B] that is every bit as much part of the system in use has the potential to have far greater impact. It shifts the cultural fabric of the game to one where players are allowed to expect principled decision making from their GMs and see where they are acting against the shared interests of the game. Part of what I enjoy about running a game with explicitly stated principles is that those principles become a measure by which the other players can hold my feet to the fire. It allows us to course correct and helps to keep me honest. Also when we keep things closer to the fiction it becomes far easier to see what is actually going on and tell if my framing was off. I am not saying there is no use for mechanisms. We know how to structure mechanisms that can have a stronger impact on the social dynamic at the table. The specific questions that [B]read a charged situation[/B] obliges a GM to answer truthfully if you succeed does far more to encourage GMs to impart useful information. The way Blades in the Dark represents actions according to [B]effect[/B] and [B]position[/B](risk level) encourages transparency, negotiation and powerful expectations of what results should look like in the fiction. Although I am not really that much of a fan of explicit stake setting and intent based resolution much of the time it does create powerful expectations that enable more informed decision making. I would add that I believe we should be careful that whatever game we use does not short circuit skilled play of fictional position. I think [B]Things On Character Sheets[/B] can serve to increase our interests in the fiction and relate it to us in a way that can more effectively be gamed, but the beating heart of any roleplaying game should reside in meaningful exploration of the fiction. I also have no significant issue with judgement calls. I just think we should be applying our judgements in principled ways that enable greater player investment in the game and impactful decision making. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
Top