Players choose what their PCs do . . .

Tony Vargas · Jul 2, 2019

pemerton said:
it is possible (i) for it to be true that the players choose what their PCs do - and (ii) for there to be fudge-free checks and yet (iii) for it also to be the case that the GM decides everything significant that happens

Sounds obvious, now that you've said it.

What do others think about who does, or should, get to establish the truth of descriptions of PC actions, and how?

It seems a TTRPG could consist mostly of a give-and-take, perhaps mediated by resources, like FATE points in that system (or slots in D&D), of establishing "truths" in that sense, and reconciling them to find out what happens.

aramis erak · Jul 2, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Sounds obvious, now that you've said it.

It seems a TTRPG could consist mostly of a give-and-take, perhaps mediated by resources, like FATE points in that system (or slots in D&D), of establishing "truths" in that sense, and reconciling them to find out what happens.

There are several games that are "point-pushers"...

The best known I can think of is Marvel Universe (by Marvel Comics Group)... also noted as a pretty big flop.

The Warriors Adventure Game (based upon the Warriors novels and comics) also is a point pusher.

I've 3 or 4 others I've read... I've not enjoyed the two I got to table. Others do enjoy them, and I cannot recall the titles of the others. But there are some out there.

If one wanted to convert D&D 5 to a point pusher...
All weapons/spells use the fixed damages, not rolled. (not popular, but allowed in 5E).
Change advantage from 2d20 to +5, and disadvantage likewise to -5. (as it would be for passives).
Every die you roll on checks gives half its maximum roll in points. You can spend any amount of points desired, within the range of the minimum for the die type(s) and the maximum for the die types.
Such would be quite playable... and for some, better than rolling. For others, and especially so for me, very unfun.

pemerton · Jul 2, 2019

aramis erak said:
it's still describing the attempt, not the outcome.

In PbtA do you think it's acceptable for the GM to establish that the PC didn't actually wink - whether by exercise of authority or, more likely, as the result of a failed check?

My feeling is "no", but I'm no sort of PtbA expert.

In BW I think the answer can be "yes", though I don't think that would be all that common. In The Dying Earth I'm pretty confident the answer can be "yes".

Wightbred · Jul 2, 2019

aramis erak said:
Which is itself another untennable stance. As stated, it only takes one to falsify. I have met many who not only don't want adversary authority, but their fun is diminished when said authority is shared, because they may have to use it. I have found most of my friends do NOT appreciate being put on the spot to be in the authorial stance.

aramis erak said:
It's worth noting that I often see (for lack of a better term) disciples of Mr. Baker stating shared GMing as if it is universally good. It isn't. It's good for some, bad for many (perhaps most), and is certainly uncomfortable for most groups I've tried it with.

Hi friend, and thanks for your reply. You might have noticed I’m a lurker not a fighter here. I’m more interested in new ideas than convincing someone on the internet. But given you have prepared such a detailed response to my original quick missive I’m happy to elaborate a little more, but perhaps with a wry smile in the corner of my mouth.

I suspect you perceive me in the mold of ‘damn hipster disciples of Mr Baker’ that unfortunately wounds my sense of being a well-rounded individual. I am a definitely a devoted disciple of Mr Baker, but also Mr Mearls, Mr Ross Watson, Mr Morningstarr, Mr Laws, Masters Livingston and Jackson, and many other excellent designers. I am currently running AiME D&D 5e and the Marvel Superheroes Adventure Game and playing Wrath and Glory rather than any indie nonsense, so I feel I might escape this constrained view.

I have played many an excellent game in the past with close friends who do not enjoy authoring and many of them are not base villains and some didn’t even have two heads. I find myself and the people I play with share more authoring in our current expeditions, Like the vast majority of RPG players I find myself disinclined to point out to anyone playing a different way that they only think they are having fun and to take away and burn their books or perform other clearly justified punishments. The final point in my first post is a sincere and genuine satisfaction that there are a wide range of high quality modern games that allow everyone to play the way they want.

I’m not sure we have the same understanding of the Czege Principle. Rather than debating at length there is a detailed explanation here: http://www.lumpley.com/archive/167.htmlhttp://www.lumpley.com/archive/167.html but I must warn you that it is from Mr Baker’s blog.

aramis erak said:
None of your examples are GM-less…

How I love a good GM-less / GM-ful game! I foolishly left them out because I was worried they would cloud the issue. But Fiasco and Remember Tomorrow and other gems really do show new ways of sharing authoring, which is a boon for people who like this style. We also (heresy!) play AW without having a single GM / MC at the table on occasion and we don’t just sit silently all night.

aramis erak said:
Let's address the AWE/PBTA use case...

aramis erak said:
AWE/PBTA typically presumes several key things:
- Assent may be assumed on any narration unless the authority states otherwise. … the authority … the authority …

I don’t find this a particularly good summary of AW of the MC role therewithin. For me it misses the approach of shared responsibility and key elements of drawing out authoring like ‘draw maps and leave blanks’, ‘ask questions’, ‘build on each other’s ideas’, ‘so it is a charged situation?’, examples where the MC changes their view in response to players and the way many 7-9 results deliberately share authoring around. In play I find that AW draws out the truth that any game is a construct of the situation and conversation, and what happens at the table is really agreed by everyone in a shared way, not enforced by a single authority figure. I feel you may ask me to elaborate here, but this is probably well off topic for the OP and it involves more of Mr Baker’s work which I sense you are not as enamoured with.

This was pretty fun to write up. I hope you take it in the honest but tongue-in-cheek way I intend it and we can enjoy some further positive and fun exchanges on this issue.

Maxperson · Jul 2, 2019

Wightbred said:
How I love a good GM-less / GM-ful game! I foolishly left them out because I was worried they would cloud the issue. But Fiasco and Remember Tomorrow and other gems really do show new ways of sharing authoring, which is a boon for people who like this style. We also (heresy!) play AW without having a single GM / MC at the table on occasion and we don’t just sit silently all night.

Those games function by having players be GMs(even if they don't call them GMs specifically). The players step out of the duties that players have in RPGs and assume the duties that GMs have in RPGS when needed, effectively making people both a GM and a player, depending on what they are doing at the time.

They aren't really games with no GM.

Aldarc · Jul 2, 2019

Maxperson said:
[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]Those games function by having players be GMs(even if they don't call them GMs specifically). The players step out of the duties that players have in RPGs and assume the duties that GMs have in RPGS when needed, effectively making people both a GM and a player, depending on what they are doing at the time.

They aren't really games with no GM.

It's probably not wise to resume this past debate, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], especially in a thread that has managed fairly well with keeping on topic. It's okay to disagree without comment.

Maxperson · Jul 2, 2019

Aldarc said:
It's probably not wise to resume this past debate, @Maxperson, especially in a thread that has managed fairly well with keeping on topic. It's okay to disagree without comment.

I was right then, too.

Aldarc · Jul 2, 2019

Maxperson said:
I was right then, too.

Reads Maxperson's post: /disarm trap and continues with thread.

Maxperson · Jul 2, 2019

Aldarc said:
Reads Maxperson's post: /disarm trap and continues with thread.

I don't create traps. If you saw one, it was entirely within your own mind.

Imaro · Jul 2, 2019

pemerton said:
This example shows how it is possible (i) for it to be true that the players choose what their PCs do - under a certain, fairly thin or confined sort of description - and (ii) for there to be fudge-free checks and yet (iii) for it also to be the case that the GM decides everything significant that happens - ie it is the GM who gets to establish the richer, wider, consequence-laden descriptions of what the PCs do.

Could you better explain what you mean by significant in this case When you say "richer, wider, consequence-laden descriptions of what the PCs do..." are you just speaking to results of an action? Because I don't think establishing the result falls into the same bucket as descriptions of what the PC's do.

In your example about winking and melting the woman's heart the I see it as the action is winking... the intent is to melt the maiden's heart... and whether that happens or not is the result. Now different games will handle resolution differently but in most games since there would be uncertainty in whether the wink melts the woman's heart or not... how is that describing what the PC does until that uncertainty has been resolved? IMO it's describing the (intended/desired) result.

As to your example around the safe again I feel it's not declaring a PC's action... it's declaring an action search the safe...intention to find document X and the result/uncertainty would be whether said documents are in the safe or not. The main difference I am seeing between your example and one for a traditional game is that the GM cannot decide an intention automatically fails or succeeds... is that the main crux?

Players choose what their PCs do . . .

Tony Vargas

Legend

aramis erak

Legend

pemerton

Legend

Wightbred

Explorer

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Aldarc

Legend

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Aldarc

Legend

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Imaro

Legend

Similar Threads