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
*TTRPGs General
What is *worldbuilding* for?
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: 7371869" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>But I am talking about a system that has finality of resolution: success means that the intent of the action declaration is realised.</p><p></p><p>I am also talking about a system in which stakes are express or implicit in the framing and the context of resolution: there are not unrevealed backstory elements that mean that an action resolution success might nevertheless mean that the PC actually goes <em>backwards</em> in achieving his/her goal (compare [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s example upthread of the mage who charmed the NPC trying to preserve civic order, only to unknowingly make an enemy of the duke).</p><p></p><p>"Added challenge', in the context of GM manipulation of backstory together with an absence of finality in resolution, can be opaque to the player, may emerge or manifest itself at any time, and is not amenable to risk mitigation (as per some recent posts not far upthread).</p><p></p><p>So there are two approaches to framing, if the player has as a goal for his/her PC "I will find an item to help confront my balrog-possessed brother before leaving town":</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">(1) The GM tells the player "You're in a bazaar, with a peddler offering an angel feather for sale. What do you do?"</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">(2) The GM tells the player "You're in the town. What do you do?</p><p></p><p>The content in (1) itself reflects player agency - it is the GM directly engaging the player's statement of dramatic need. The content in (2) does not.</p><p></p><p>Suppose, following (1), the player declares some action in relation to the feather: <em>I offer 3 drachmas for it</em> or <em>I read its aura to learn what useful magical traits it has.</em> The upshot of these are not <em>just</em> the GM telling stuff to the player. It is the player establishing salient content of the shared fiction. If the offer to buy succeeds, the PC now owns the feather. If the attempt to read the aura succeeds, the PC learns of a useful trait the feather has. Conversely, if the check fails then an adverse consequence ensues - in this case, the feather is Resistant to Fire but also cursed.</p><p></p><p>Suppose, following (2), the player says "I look for a bazaar". If the GM simply says "yes", then the only difference that I see from what I described is that we spend 5 minutes of play getting to the action. It's certainly not the case that the player had to "work" for it in any other sense of "work". </p><p></p><p>If the GM says "No, there are no open markets in this town" then we already have hitherto unrevealed backstory being used by the GM to drive the direction of play. The player now has to start making other moves that will get the GM to tell him/her the stuff necesaary to get to where the action is. (Eg "OK, so I look for a curio shop instead" or "OK, I look for a wizard's tower" or whatever.)</p><p></p><p>And if the GM calls for a check (say, Streetwise), then what happens if it fails? Now the focus of play is not on what the player has flagged (ie finding a useful item) but on something the GM has decided to make a big deal of (ie finding a place where items might be sold). Again, the player now has to start declaring different moves that (whether via the GM saying "yes", or due to successful checks) that eventually result in the Gm describing the PC as being in a place where a potentially useful item is on sale. It's all that stuff that I describe as <em>making moves whose purpose is to get the GM to say more stuff about the gameworld</em>.</p><p></p><p>I wrote the preceding paragraphs before reading this. It seems pretty consistent with what I wrote, so I'm leaving what I wrote unchanged and don't see the need to add anything more.</p><p></p><p>All RPGing involves conversation. In this post just above, and in many earlier posts, I have tried to make it fairly clear what I am talking about.</p><p></p><p><em>Investigation</em> and <em>exploration</em>, in the sense that (eg) [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] talks about them, mean the players making moves that have no result but the GM relating more stuff about the gameworld (either read from notes, or made up on the spot but having the same status as if it were read from notes). Paradigms of this sort of RPGing are CoC modules and "story"-style D&D modules like Dead Gods.</p><p></p><p>The player trying to find a marketplace or a wizard or a curio shop that might sell items is, in a GH-driven game, almost certainly going to be this sort of RPGing.</p><p></p><p>What I am contrasting it with is action declaration whose success or failure doesn't simply change what the players know about the shared fiction, but actually changes the content of the shared fiction in some salient fashion - eg <em>I search the study for the map</em>, if it succeeds, yields the result that the PC has found the map; or <em>I read the aura of the feather to identify any useful traits</em>, if it succeeds, yields the result that the feather has useful traits; etc.</p><p></p><p>Well, in the first session of my BW game - the one with the angel feather - the PCs interacted with a sorcerous cabal, its local leader Jabal, and a peddler who had purchased various items from a dishevelled man whom they later saw in Jabal's tower.</p><p></p><p>As [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] said, this sort of stuff doesn't depend upon pre-authorship.</p><p></p><p>Or is <em>depth</em> a reference not to the actual possibility of story elements, but rather something about their emotional resonance with the participants?</p><p></p><p>You haven't really said anything about how you would adjudicate the attempt to free the brother. How do you establish if a shop (or market, or wizard, or whatever) has a useful item? How do you determine what <em>counts</em> as a useful item?</p><p></p><p>What sort of check would be involved?</p><p></p><p>It's clear to me that, to you, the difference between <em>the GM reading from notes</em> and <em>the GM making stuff up and giving it the same status as if it was on his/her notes</em> is important.</p><p></p><p>A long way (as in, many many hundreds of posts) upthread I explained why I don't see the difference as that significant. It's because, as long as the GM treats this made-up stuff as if it were in his/her notes, player action declarations really have the status of suggestions for what the shared fiction might contain. There is no robust resolution with finality.</p><p></p><p>Whereas you seem to regard it as very important that (unlike what <em>you</em> would call a railroad) the GM is taking suggestions.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7371869, member: 42582"] But I am talking about a system that has finality of resolution: success means that the intent of the action declaration is realised. I am also talking about a system in which stakes are express or implicit in the framing and the context of resolution: there are not unrevealed backstory elements that mean that an action resolution success might nevertheless mean that the PC actually goes [I]backwards[/I] in achieving his/her goal (compare [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s example upthread of the mage who charmed the NPC trying to preserve civic order, only to unknowingly make an enemy of the duke). "Added challenge', in the context of GM manipulation of backstory together with an absence of finality in resolution, can be opaque to the player, may emerge or manifest itself at any time, and is not amenable to risk mitigation (as per some recent posts not far upthread). So there are two approaches to framing, if the player has as a goal for his/her PC "I will find an item to help confront my balrog-possessed brother before leaving town": [indent](1) The GM tells the player "You're in a bazaar, with a peddler offering an angel feather for sale. What do you do?" (2) The GM tells the player "You're in the town. What do you do?[/indent] The content in (1) itself reflects player agency - it is the GM directly engaging the player's statement of dramatic need. The content in (2) does not. Suppose, following (1), the player declares some action in relation to the feather: [I]I offer 3 drachmas for it[/I] or [I]I read its aura to learn what useful magical traits it has.[/I] The upshot of these are not [I]just[/I] the GM telling stuff to the player. It is the player establishing salient content of the shared fiction. If the offer to buy succeeds, the PC now owns the feather. If the attempt to read the aura succeeds, the PC learns of a useful trait the feather has. Conversely, if the check fails then an adverse consequence ensues - in this case, the feather is Resistant to Fire but also cursed. Suppose, following (2), the player says "I look for a bazaar". If the GM simply says "yes", then the only difference that I see from what I described is that we spend 5 minutes of play getting to the action. It's certainly not the case that the player had to "work" for it in any other sense of "work". If the GM says "No, there are no open markets in this town" then we already have hitherto unrevealed backstory being used by the GM to drive the direction of play. The player now has to start making other moves that will get the GM to tell him/her the stuff necesaary to get to where the action is. (Eg "OK, so I look for a curio shop instead" or "OK, I look for a wizard's tower" or whatever.) And if the GM calls for a check (say, Streetwise), then what happens if it fails? Now the focus of play is not on what the player has flagged (ie finding a useful item) but on something the GM has decided to make a big deal of (ie finding a place where items might be sold). Again, the player now has to start declaring different moves that (whether via the GM saying "yes", or due to successful checks) that eventually result in the Gm describing the PC as being in a place where a potentially useful item is on sale. It's all that stuff that I describe as [I]making moves whose purpose is to get the GM to say more stuff about the gameworld[/I]. I wrote the preceding paragraphs before reading this. It seems pretty consistent with what I wrote, so I'm leaving what I wrote unchanged and don't see the need to add anything more. All RPGing involves conversation. In this post just above, and in many earlier posts, I have tried to make it fairly clear what I am talking about. [I]Investigation[/I] and [I]exploration[/I], in the sense that (eg) [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] talks about them, mean the players making moves that have no result but the GM relating more stuff about the gameworld (either read from notes, or made up on the spot but having the same status as if it were read from notes). Paradigms of this sort of RPGing are CoC modules and "story"-style D&D modules like Dead Gods. The player trying to find a marketplace or a wizard or a curio shop that might sell items is, in a GH-driven game, almost certainly going to be this sort of RPGing. What I am contrasting it with is action declaration whose success or failure doesn't simply change what the players know about the shared fiction, but actually changes the content of the shared fiction in some salient fashion - eg [I]I search the study for the map[/I], if it succeeds, yields the result that the PC has found the map; or [I]I read the aura of the feather to identify any useful traits[/I], if it succeeds, yields the result that the feather has useful traits; etc. Well, in the first session of my BW game - the one with the angel feather - the PCs interacted with a sorcerous cabal, its local leader Jabal, and a peddler who had purchased various items from a dishevelled man whom they later saw in Jabal's tower. As [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] said, this sort of stuff doesn't depend upon pre-authorship. Or is [I]depth[/I] a reference not to the actual possibility of story elements, but rather something about their emotional resonance with the participants? You haven't really said anything about how you would adjudicate the attempt to free the brother. How do you establish if a shop (or market, or wizard, or whatever) has a useful item? How do you determine what [I]counts[/I] as a useful item? What sort of check would be involved? It's clear to me that, to you, the difference between [i]the GM reading from notes[/I] and [I]the GM making stuff up and giving it the same status as if it was on his/her notes[/I] is important. A long way (as in, many many hundreds of posts) upthread I explained why I don't see the difference as that significant. It's because, as long as the GM treats this made-up stuff as if it were in his/her notes, player action declarations really have the status of suggestions for what the shared fiction might contain. There is no robust resolution with finality. Whereas you seem to regard it as very important that (unlike what [I]you[/I] would call a railroad) the GM is taking suggestions. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
What is *worldbuilding* for?
Top