Players choose what their PCs do . . .

Lanefan said:

Not quite, in my view.

When the roll shows 'success' the GM is bound by that to narrate a successul outcome...of some sort. This successful outcome doesn't (or at least IMO shouldn't) necessarily have to directly match what the player had in mind* as long as the narration reflects an overall success for the PC.

My example above, though not the best, tries to show this: the search doesn't find the incriminating financial records the PC was looking for but does find something else that's every bit as incriminating: the Southtor seal, which no loyal noble would normally have anything to do with. Specific goal of finding financial records: not met. Overall goal of finding incriminating evidence agains tthe Duke: met in spades.

* - though most often it will anyway, as much of the time the success-failure outcomes of a given action are fairly obvious.

This gets back to our old argument regarding what 'failure' represents; here you'd have a failure just become a different type of success, which isn't a failure at all.

Click to expand...

This goes right back to the OP where the question was about the difference between what your character does, as in proposes an action that the DM then determines the result of, or what you character does, as in you get to say the action and the outcome. This is firmly in that former group, the thin declaration, whereby the player is essentially asking the GM to do something nice if they succeed at the mechanic (that the GM likely picks, and sets the parameters of).

to go back to your earlier example, you swapped out papers showing guilt for a seal that may show guilt. Assuming that the result of the find aren't already in the GM's notes and the GM decides this at the moment, this is a weakening of the play the player does -- the GM is reducing the level of success to something that the player wasn't asking for. Yet, it's presented as a good because it doesn't fetter the GM from softening outcomes like this and fettering the GM is... bad, I guess. It's also presented as if the softening of outcome is a good as well -- that's it's cool to reduce the asked for success because the GM wants it that way. This thinking, to me, goes hand in hand with structured GM stories that the players play through -- the GM is acting this way to protect their idea of what should happen rather than playing to find out. It's a valid way to play, obviously, and popular, also obviously, but it really puts the entire load on the GM to run in a principled enough manner to keep players. Judging by the many threads, this may not be the most common outcome.

pemerton said:

The most interesting thing for me at the moment - obviously I can't speak for others - is what are the necessary conditions for a genuine challenge to character concept? This is what @Ovinomancer and I have disagreed about - I believe without undue acrimony! I would be very interested to hear what @Campbell, @chaochou and/or @Aldarc thinks about it, should they care to weigh in.

Click to expand...

You want each player to have created for their character a number of clearly defined relationships, beliefs, allegiances, dependencies and responsibilities. The creation of these should, of itself, create the arena for the game's action. The 'world' is a backdrop, the crucible in which the players' creations spark into life.

Then you set the character's individual drives in opposition to each other, such that it's not possible to maintain or improve one element without cost or harm to another. You can also take each character's relationships, attitudes, allegiances, dependencies and responsibilities and set them in fractured alignment or semi-opposition of those of the other characters, to create a shifting, fluid situation of alliances and betrayals, ugly compromises, faustian pacts and devil's bargains.

Mechanically, the game has to support challenges which require clear, evident and binding stakes, the loss of which (by definition) force a reappraisal of relationships, attitudes, allegiances, dependencies or responsibilities in the event of failure.

Values for these things, or points of their own humanity, bits of their soul, closeness to their ancestors - all these are very useful as currency for challenges. They act as a focus, and a catalyst for the creativity of the player to reappraise the character. And they allow other players to recognise, appreciate and enjoy the development of characters which are not their own.

Finally, I think a genuine challenge to the character is completely seperate from one which challenges the player. That's a red herring, a totally false equivalence. Ideally, the player is comfortable, relaxed and relishing the process of authoring the character as it burns, and the creativity it affords them.

pemerton said:

@Hussar, @Lanefan - if narrowing of possible resolutions = the GM being bound by the results of checks, than sure, any system other than "GM decides" will have that consequence.

But unless the dice are rigged then fails are possible, in which case fail scenarios are possible resolutions, and there is no narrowing of the range of possible resolution.

Click to expand...

You are looking before the dice were ever rolled and saying see this system covers all possible resolutions.
The rest of us are looking at it after the dice are already rolled - and at that moment the range of possible resolutions are restricted.
But even in this belabored exchange, the more important point seems forgotten - that the GM typically has the power to call for a check or not call for a check and if he has that power then nothing is permitted that the GM doesn't permit. Do some systems avoid giving the GM that level of control? I'm sure some exist - but to what detriment?

But most importantly, the dice add nothing to my character conception (because as noted, every conceivable character possible in a dice based game is also possible without the dice), nor are they some divine tool which unlock the ability to challenge a PC (as if PC's cannot be challenged without dice or out of game randomization tools). In fact one might ask, how can something we do in this world cause any challenge to a PC in a fictional world? It seems far fetched to think that rolling dice in this world is the only way to challenge a PC in the fictional world no? Or are challenges not real in our world? Do we only misperceive them as challegnes when in fact they aren't because there's no god ordained dice roller for our universe? Rant over!

I mean it may even be fun to roll dice and they likely can be used to enhance the game part of an RPG, but all roleplay can be had without them. In fact it should be obvious that dice and roleplaying are at odds - imagine a game that only ever used dice to determine everything about your character and everything they do and everything they think etc. There is no room left to roleplay in that scenario. That should make it obvious that the more you use the dice to determine the less room you have to roleplay. Likewise the more the GM determines for you the less room you have to roleplay.

It seems to me these are obvious truths, or at least should be so.

pemerton said:

What are the necessary conditions for a genuine challenge to character concept? This is what @Ovinomancer and I have disagreed about - I believe without undue acrimony! I would be very interested to hear what @Campbell, @chaochou and/or @Aldarc thinks about it, should they care to weigh in. (Of course it's their prerogative not to.) My own views on this are heavily influenced by a certain conception of GM role in terms of framing scenes that put players under pressure by putting things that matter to the PC at stake. I don't know Exalted at all except from Campbell's accounts in this and other threads; and my experience with PbtA games is fairly limited, although I know the rule sets for DW and AW fairly well.

Click to expand...

I personally do not really care. I am not really interested in testing characters. I'm more interested in character exploration. Sometimes that means putting them through the crucible, but sometimes it does not. My own litmus test is if a scene will tell us something meaningful about a character. What's required is for everyone (GM included) to play with integrity and not put their creative vision above the shared narrative. I think it helps to have mechanics that help get us into the right head space for our characters. Here I prioritize emotional immersion over intellectual immersion. It also helps to have mechanics that have something to say because it helps ground us in the right mood and makes it easier for the tension to feel real in the moment.

FrogReaver said:

You are looking before the dice were ever rolled and saying see this system covers all possible resolutions.
The rest of us are looking at it after the dice are already rolled - and at that moment the range of possible resolutions are restricted.
But even in this belabored exchange, the more important point seems forgotten - that the GM typically has the power to call for a check or not call for a check and if he has that power then nothing is permitted that the GM doesn't permit. Do some systems avoid giving the GM that level of control? I'm sure some exist - but to what detriment?

Click to expand...

Wait, you're asking what detriment exists if you don't gate everything through the GM's approval?

I'm going to need to sit down awhile on that one. I mean... but... really?

But most importantly, the dice add nothing to my character conception (because as noted, every conceivable character possible in a dice based game is also possible without the dice), nor are they some divine tool which unlock the ability to challenge a PC (as if PC's cannot be challenged without dice or out of game randomization tools). In fact one might ask, how can something we do in this world cause any challenge to a PC in a fictional world? It seems far fetched to think that rolling dice in this world is the only way to challenge a PC in the fictional world no? Or are challenges not real in our world? Do we only misperceive them as challegnes when in fact they aren't because there's no god ordained dice roller for our universe? Rant over!

I mean it may even be fun to roll dice and they likely can be used to enhance the game part of an RPG, but all roleplay can be had without them. In fact it should be obvious that dice and roleplaying are at odds - imagine a game that only ever used dice to determine everything about your character and everything they do and everything they think etc. There is no room left to roleplay in that scenario. That should make it obvious that the more you use the dice to determine the less room you have to roleplay. Likewise the more the GM determines for you the less room you have to roleplay.

It seems to me these are obvious truths, or at least should be so.

Click to expand...

This is, well, a bit philosophically confused. I'll let [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] bring the big words, but you're doing a decent job pointing out that what happens in game is a fiction and therefore different from what happens in the real world. You break up a bit when you assume that roleplaying a character has anything like the fidelity of being a Real Boy or that the roleplaying game can present a world as rich and uncertain as the real world. The mechanics don't exist because dice are cool (but, you know, they are) but because of that lack of fidelity. The game is a model of a world (fantastical, even) and, as such, it cannot be true to the real world. Further, we are each our own island -- no man can know another and all that. So, assuming that you, a person, can perfectly render a fictional character that is not you with any real fidelity is a bit silly-sounding. We do our best, but for those cases where it's murky because of the lack of fidelity there are mechanics.

Otherwise, there's absolutely no need for any social mechanics in D&D -- no persuasion, no deception, no insight, heck, no Charm Person saving throws! All of these things can be roleplayed, right, and roleplaying without dice is as faithful a rendering as possible because it uses the human decision machine, which never has a bias or agenda other than that of roleplaying the character to the fullest! Ok, bit of snark there, but I really find this argument absolutely silly -- it's an attempt to lionize free-form roleplaying as the best form of role-playing. And it's cool to do so, and all, but you've just said that kids playing cops-and-robbers are peak roleplayers because it's freeform.

And, all of that said, perhaps a player wishes to NOT be the sole arbiter and knower of their character, but might want to be occasionally surprised by this thing they're playing because that spurs them to even more imaginative levels by trying to reconcile the before and after of a change. I know, heresy -- character concepts spring forth from the head of the slain GM fully formed and perfect.

Campbell said:

I personally do not really care. I am not really interested in testing characters. I'm more interested in character exploration. Sometimes that means putting them through the crucible, but sometimes it does not. My own litmus test is if a scene will tell us something meaningful about a character. What's required is for everyone (GM included) to play with integrity and not put their creative vision above the shared narrative. I think it helps to have mechanics that help get us into the right head space for our characters. Here I prioritize emotional immersion over intellectual immersion. It also helps to have mechanics that have something to say because it helps ground us in the right mood and makes it easier for the tension to feel real in the moment.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. How a player makes a choice for the character can tell us something about that character without a challenge. I've said this before -- choices are still good play, they just aren't challenges. There's lots of tools in the box to get character out, but the nature of message boards is the hyper-focus on a point of disagreement until it looks like the whole point to begin with.

I would hope this would be obvious, but a system which in no way constrains GM narration is offering nothing of value. It says nothing. Provides nothing. It has no teeth. If a die roll does not constrain GM narration what is the point except empty ritual?

Campbell said:

I would hope this would be obvious, but a system which in no way constrains GM narration is offering nothing of value. It says nothing. Provides nothing. It has no teeth. If a die roll does not constrain GM narration what is the point except empty ritual?

Click to expand...

But, no one is saying that.

No one is saying that you can change a success into a failure. What is being talked about is that if the Player defines success, then the GM cannot. Which is a constraint on the game that some of us don't want.

OTOH, it appears that Pemerton want's failure to always be some sort of success (fail forward) at all times. Which again, is a restriction on the game that not all of us want. Sometimes a failure is just that - a failure. It's not required that the game forces the GM to always narrate in a certain fashion.

pemerton said:

I'm not sure about incentives.

Click to expand...

Can you explain more what you mean about not being sure about incentives? Not sure about incentives interfacing with the decision-tree in a moment of thematic choice? Incentives that push back against the impetus to establish a win condition for a scene/arc or create extra obstacles to that win condition in exchange for advancement? Something else?

pemerton said:

When I read the Strike(!) I think of "intent and task" and failure narration in BW. Or the example from AW that I posted upthread. If the check fails, the GM is entitled to narrate the failure by imposing a new and unwanted description of the PC's action. But I don't think in any of the systems this could go as far as you've fallen in love with the maiden unless that was the mere capstone to already-established fiction. More like your eye is caught by the maiden's wink, and you fail to notice . . .

When I read the DitV I think of the examples I've posted upthread about the paladin and Nightcrawler. At least as I recall it, there is no mechanic in DitV for making it true that (say) a PC loves another PC or an NPC. But it is quite possible to produce outcomes that the player didn't choose and that reveal the character as falling under a new unexpected description (eg I'm a killer). And these then provoke choice, reflection, crisis etc on the part of the PC as mediated through the player.

Click to expand...

Paragraph 1 Response:

That makes sense as Strike (!) is basically a mash-up of Burning Wheel (mostly Mouse Guard), D&D 4e, and Apocalypse World.

Making a PC outright "Lovestruck" (a Condition that must be resolved) in Strike (!) as a Twist without any prior setup would almost surely run afoul of GM authority. However, if a prior Conflict led to a Complication for a PC being captivated by an NPC, a Twist With a Cost result on another related Conflict could easily have the result be a "Lovestruck" Condition.

Paragraph 2 Response:

Regarding Dogs and romantic love, its something that isn't very often a thematic focus (due to Dogs being teen/early 20s virgins devoted to and trained for being priests/justicars of The Faith). Here is a quick excerpt of the only time it was relevant to a game I ran.

A PC from a troubled background had no family. Due to this, a young girl named Tess Olsen made his coat for him. Secretly, he was smitten by her and she by him. In character creation, he had the (complicating at 2d4) Relationship with her; "When my service is done, I'm going to marry Tess Olsen."

The game featured multiple conflicts that were just him reading her received letters while he was on the road, me playing her desperation and his lovesickness and him playing his resolve and sense of duty. My plays were basically him reading lines of the letter. His plays were his reflections/visceral reactions after reading a sentence or two.

The Fallout effects of these conflicts were usually under 8 (being only d4 early on and you sum the two highest) so just short term effects, typically just subtracting 1 from the PC's Acuity or Heart for the next conflict (but which fed back into these future conflicts...and then Reflection on the ride to the next town and attendant PC change).

However, the Relationship dice and size with her increased over time, and eventually led to an "Itchy Trigger-finger" Trait d6 and higher Fallout with an 8+ result in one of those "Letter Conflicts" which changed their relationship permanently. Eventually, he killed a man (an Idolater from the East who was soft-peddling paganism) in the street and it was related to that new Trait and short-term Fallout damage to his stats (forcing him to Escalate to guns).

The PC retired after that, disappearing during the night's camp, with a letter of regret left behind to his companions and a letter that he wished for them to give to Tess.

Campbell said:

I prioritize emotional immersion over intellectual immersion.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. I use the phrase inhabitation of the character to try and convey this idea.

chaochou said:

I think a genuine challenge to the character is completely seperate from one which challenges the player. That's a red herring, a totally false equivalence. Ideally, the player is comfortable, relaxed and relishing the process of authoring the character as it burns, and the creativity it affords them.

Click to expand...

I think, though, that some systems can be more demanding on the players than others, and challenging in that sense. To give examples: Prince Valiant and MHRP tend to be relatively light-hearted in the situations they throw up; whereas Burning Wheel (and I suspect Apocalypse World) can be much "heavier"/"deeper" (I'm not sure what the right word is).

Both are fun, but the latter is more likely to leave a participant feeling drained than is the former.