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
The importance to RPGing of *engaging* situations
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="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8924005" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>So some thoughts:</p><p></p><p>* Again, I like your classification of "Parasitic" (in that I think it does quality work to diagnose a particular form of design), but something is really off with your diagnosis of it in Blades in the Dark. It seems to me that a few things must be true for a game to qualify with your designator:</p><p></p><p>1) Either the gamestate is inherently degraded or, at some point, the gamestate must degrade (whether precipitously or suddenly) despite the inputs of the participants, and the competitive integrity of the play degraded with it, as a natural course of merely playing the game. This is because the gamestate is sufficiently decoupled from the skillfulness of the operators to render it irrelevant and...</p><p></p><p>2) This degradation must, therefore, be encoded, meaning, it must be foundational, built into the very framework/DNA of play. Play cannot escape it, either incidentally or by concerted effort of the participants (within the framework of the game engine).</p><p></p><p>So, effectively, we've got a deterministic system that has an inescapable inertia because no external force can act upon it to arrest the motion. Skillful play cannot exist. As an impartial observer, as a GM, or as a player, you cannot suss out masterful play from skillful play to poor play to "misplay city."</p><p></p><p>Alright...so, a significant part of my background is in athletic contests, martial arts (including contests), and fitness (including contests). I took up climbing 3.25 years ago. I've been running TTRPG games forever (especially games where skilled play is ether the apex priority, like Moldvay Basic, or, at least, an essential priority). I have played all of the big CRPGs that measure varying forms of skillful play (from games like Slay the Spire to all the Dark Souls to Darkest Dungeon etc). My life has, more or less, been an endless march of competition.</p><p></p><p>And I've probably GMed something like 1000 hours worth of Blades in the Dark in the last 4 years and change (I average running somewhere between 2.5 weekly TTRPG games of various sorts)?</p><p></p><p>I don't know what is going on broadly with your Blades in the Dark experience, but something is very...very...off. (1) and (2) above is just fundamentally not true. And then the conclusion of the paragraph below it is also fundamentally not true. Reading what you are saying, it seems to me (and I hope that I'm not creating offense here...but this is just my read) that you have some of...purity test (?) happening in your brain when it comes to the competitive through line of gameplay, and the attendant skillfulness metric associated with that through line, that is just a bit disconnected from the facts of the ground when it comes to any competitive enterprise. Its something like:</p><p></p><p>- if you must engage with the actual parameters of a designed game...</p><p></p><p>- and you cannot reject those baked-in parameters to establish your own parameters of engagement outside of them...</p><p></p><p>- and those parameters beset the participants with the inability to reduce their assumed risk profile to 0 or near 0 (as is the case in virtually every game designed...and not just TTRPGs)....</p><p></p><p>- then the game ceases to become a test of skill and competitive integrity because the gamestate must degrade (or is inherently degraded) to some degree whereby you feel it is decoupled from participant input.</p><p></p><p>Its like..."if you can't opt out of playing the game <em>as-is</em> in order to outright nullify risk...then the game ceases to become a contest of skill?" There is another saying that comes to mind; "the only way to win is <em><strong>not</strong></em> <em>to play</em>." If this reading of your position is correct (or its even in the vicinity of near the mark)...then something is very off here (and imo, disconnected from the reality of virtually every competitive endeavor humanity has built).</p><p></p><p>I like "Parasitic Design" as a piece of taxonomy technology. But I think (maybe I'm wrong) that there is something "off" with your assessment or you're casting your net, far, far, far too wide.</p><p></p><p>[HR][/HR]</p><p></p><p>* Ok, on Blades and risk assessment specifically? Again, something befouled your play. I don't know if the GM didn't understand the system or the participants at large didn't understand the system, but this is not correct. Blades is shot through with elements (both discrete and integrated) that are fundamentally about tactical or strategic risk assessment and mitigation.</p><p></p><p>1) Every Action Roll has Position and Effect. Managing this matrix is about risk assessment and mitigation with both tactical and strategic elements. Do I want to keep my present risk/threat level (Position) or can I endure enhanced threat (by proxy of evaluating resources/approaches I can bring to bear to both (a) amplify my prospects of success and (b) mitigate or outright resolve downstream Consequences)? What are the Consequences on the table for this particular obstacle/situation? Do I like this array of Consequences (good GMing often means more than 1 Consequence on the table for any given Action Roll...eg; if its Desperate, I'll telegraph a Risky Consequence and a Controlled Consequence for players to fold into their risk assessment/decision tree) or do I want to negotiate different ones via a different approach (either a different approach to the situation entirely or a different matrix of Position/Effect)? Can I assume the risk of Desperate Position here so I can tick an xp that I need for downstream Advancement? How much Effect do I need to turn the tide of the situation or to outright resolve the Obstacle (eg I've got x ticks on a Clock remaining or I need to ensure that if the GM hits me with Reduced Effect as a Consequence, that I've got enough Effect to "carry out my play")?</p><p></p><p>2) You're managing your own Stress Pool, your Trauma totals, your own Harm and Recovery Clocks, your Cohorts' Harm, your Crew's Heat and Wanted Level, your juggling the decision-space of Threat/Faction/Setting extra-Score Clocks that might go off against you and how you can dispatch your Crew and Cohorts on Scores (the current Blades game I'm running features 2, sometimes even 3 Scores per loop) and manage your individual and collective Downtime Activities to push back against these gathering Clocks and their "go boom" results. You're managing your Claim Map. You're managing your Advances (PC and Crew) and analyzing the risks/benefits of the constellation of courses charted vs those not charted. You're managing the risk of At-War status or the realities of At-War status once you inevitably get there.</p><p></p><p>3) You're managing an evolving fiction (with looming threats in the way of Rivals and interconnected Enemy Factions and assets in the way of Friends/Contacts/Allies that need to be folded into the large decision-space that involves risk assessment in Blades) that is accumulating during the Score and up-to this point in play.</p><p></p><p>This is all deeply laden with tactical and strategic risk assessment. Its inescapable.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8924005, member: 6696971"] So some thoughts: * Again, I like your classification of "Parasitic" (in that I think it does quality work to diagnose a particular form of design), but something is really off with your diagnosis of it in Blades in the Dark. It seems to me that a few things must be true for a game to qualify with your designator: 1) Either the gamestate is inherently degraded or, at some point, the gamestate must degrade (whether precipitously or suddenly) despite the inputs of the participants, and the competitive integrity of the play degraded with it, as a natural course of merely playing the game. This is because the gamestate is sufficiently decoupled from the skillfulness of the operators to render it irrelevant and... 2) This degradation must, therefore, be encoded, meaning, it must be foundational, built into the very framework/DNA of play. Play cannot escape it, either incidentally or by concerted effort of the participants (within the framework of the game engine). So, effectively, we've got a deterministic system that has an inescapable inertia because no external force can act upon it to arrest the motion. Skillful play cannot exist. As an impartial observer, as a GM, or as a player, you cannot suss out masterful play from skillful play to poor play to "misplay city." Alright...so, a significant part of my background is in athletic contests, martial arts (including contests), and fitness (including contests). I took up climbing 3.25 years ago. I've been running TTRPG games forever (especially games where skilled play is ether the apex priority, like Moldvay Basic, or, at least, an essential priority). I have played all of the big CRPGs that measure varying forms of skillful play (from games like Slay the Spire to all the Dark Souls to Darkest Dungeon etc). My life has, more or less, been an endless march of competition. And I've probably GMed something like 1000 hours worth of Blades in the Dark in the last 4 years and change (I average running somewhere between 2.5 weekly TTRPG games of various sorts)? I don't know what is going on broadly with your Blades in the Dark experience, but something is very...very...off. (1) and (2) above is just fundamentally not true. And then the conclusion of the paragraph below it is also fundamentally not true. Reading what you are saying, it seems to me (and I hope that I'm not creating offense here...but this is just my read) that you have some of...purity test (?) happening in your brain when it comes to the competitive through line of gameplay, and the attendant skillfulness metric associated with that through line, that is just a bit disconnected from the facts of the ground when it comes to any competitive enterprise. Its something like: - if you must engage with the actual parameters of a designed game... - and you cannot reject those baked-in parameters to establish your own parameters of engagement outside of them... - and those parameters beset the participants with the inability to reduce their assumed risk profile to 0 or near 0 (as is the case in virtually every game designed...and not just TTRPGs).... - then the game ceases to become a test of skill and competitive integrity because the gamestate must degrade (or is inherently degraded) to some degree whereby you feel it is decoupled from participant input. Its like..."if you can't opt out of playing the game [I]as-is[/I] in order to outright nullify risk...then the game ceases to become a contest of skill?" There is another saying that comes to mind; "the only way to win is [I][B]not[/B][/I] [I]to play[/I]." If this reading of your position is correct (or its even in the vicinity of near the mark)...then something is very off here (and imo, disconnected from the reality of virtually every competitive endeavor humanity has built). I like "Parasitic Design" as a piece of taxonomy technology. But I think (maybe I'm wrong) that there is something "off" with your assessment or you're casting your net, far, far, far too wide. [HR][/HR] * Ok, on Blades and risk assessment specifically? Again, something befouled your play. I don't know if the GM didn't understand the system or the participants at large didn't understand the system, but this is not correct. Blades is shot through with elements (both discrete and integrated) that are fundamentally about tactical or strategic risk assessment and mitigation. 1) Every Action Roll has Position and Effect. Managing this matrix is about risk assessment and mitigation with both tactical and strategic elements. Do I want to keep my present risk/threat level (Position) or can I endure enhanced threat (by proxy of evaluating resources/approaches I can bring to bear to both (a) amplify my prospects of success and (b) mitigate or outright resolve downstream Consequences)? What are the Consequences on the table for this particular obstacle/situation? Do I like this array of Consequences (good GMing often means more than 1 Consequence on the table for any given Action Roll...eg; if its Desperate, I'll telegraph a Risky Consequence and a Controlled Consequence for players to fold into their risk assessment/decision tree) or do I want to negotiate different ones via a different approach (either a different approach to the situation entirely or a different matrix of Position/Effect)? Can I assume the risk of Desperate Position here so I can tick an xp that I need for downstream Advancement? How much Effect do I need to turn the tide of the situation or to outright resolve the Obstacle (eg I've got x ticks on a Clock remaining or I need to ensure that if the GM hits me with Reduced Effect as a Consequence, that I've got enough Effect to "carry out my play")? 2) You're managing your own Stress Pool, your Trauma totals, your own Harm and Recovery Clocks, your Cohorts' Harm, your Crew's Heat and Wanted Level, your juggling the decision-space of Threat/Faction/Setting extra-Score Clocks that might go off against you and how you can dispatch your Crew and Cohorts on Scores (the current Blades game I'm running features 2, sometimes even 3 Scores per loop) and manage your individual and collective Downtime Activities to push back against these gathering Clocks and their "go boom" results. You're managing your Claim Map. You're managing your Advances (PC and Crew) and analyzing the risks/benefits of the constellation of courses charted vs those not charted. You're managing the risk of At-War status or the realities of At-War status once you inevitably get there. 3) You're managing an evolving fiction (with looming threats in the way of Rivals and interconnected Enemy Factions and assets in the way of Friends/Contacts/Allies that need to be folded into the large decision-space that involves risk assessment in Blades) that is accumulating during the Score and up-to this point in play. This is all deeply laden with tactical and strategic risk assessment. Its inescapable. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
The importance to RPGing of *engaging* situations
Top