Should this be fixed

[Raven Crowking]

That's not how it works; it's very much about context-choice-consequence. Context highlights "problematic feature of human existence", the choices the players care about deal with those issues, and thus consequences will be in response to those choices.

C-C-C is a shorthand: Within a given context, you make choices, and accept the consequences of those choices. The players are the authors of the PCs' intents; they are not the authors of the world, and do not get to pick and choose what consequences they wish to occur.

1. The PCs will succeed in clearing out the Caves of Chaos, making the area safe for human habitation.

Will they?

2. Do the monsters in the Caves of Chaos have the right to self-government (or even life!), given that these are "the Borderlands", civilization is encroaching on their territory, and that they engage in some pretty barbarous acts?

That contextual question is no less valid if the players don't take semi-DM authorial stance, or get to choose the consequences of their actions. Indeed, I would say that it is more valid using the classic play model! After all, it is not Fyodor Dostoyevsky's musings on morality that make Crime and Punishment compelling, but rather the way Raskolnikov deals with the consequences of his choices, how he interprets the context that led to those choices, and how the consequences make him reinterpret the original context.

Even when reading a first-person fictional narrative, the narrator should not be mistaken for the author, and the narrator's control over context and consequence should not be mistaken for the author's.


RC

 

[LostSoul]

C-C-C is a shorthand: Within a given context, you make choices, and accept the consequences of those choices. The players are the authors of the PCs' intents; they are not the authors of the world, and do not get to pick and choose what consequences they wish to occur.

Yeah, that's how it works.

I am reminded of this:

The fun in these games¹ from the player’s viewpoint comes from the fact that he can create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character; this is the holy grail of rpg design, this is exactly the thing that was promised to me in 1992 in the MERP rulebook.​

Mentioned in the blog post: Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, some varieties of Heroquest, The Shadow of Yesterday, Mountain Witch, Primetime Adventures

Will they?

No, not necessarily, now that I think about it a little more.

That contextual question is no less valid if the players don't take semi-DM authorial stance, or get to choose the consequences of their actions. Indeed, I would say that it is more valid using the classic play model! After all, it is not Fyodor Dostoyevsky's musings on morality that make Crime and Punishment compelling, but rather the way Raskolnikov deals with the consequences of his choices, how he interprets the context that led to those choices, and how the consequences make him reinterpret the original context.

Even when reading a first-person fictional narrative, the narrator should not be mistaken for the author, and the narrator's control over context and consequence should not be mistaken for the author's.

I agree. My view is pretty well covered by the blog post I linked to.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah, that's how it works.

I am reminded of this:

The fun in these games¹ from the player’s viewpoint comes from the fact that he can create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character; this is the holy grail of rpg design, this is exactly the thing that was promised to me in 1992 in the MERP rulebook.​

Meh.

The fun in these games -- at least the games that I am talking about -- comes from the unfolding interplay of context, choice, and consequence in an unpredictable pattern.

The result may then be told as a story, but the goal is not to "create an amazing story". The experience....the "journey" if you will....is the point of playing a role-playing game. This is rather like riding a roller coaster. Reaching the "destination" just means that the ride is over.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

1. The PCs will succeed in clearing out the Caves of Chaos, making the area safe for human habitation.

Just for the record, I've run B2 in Holmes Basic, 1e, 2e, and 3e, for various groups of players over the years. "The PCs will succeed in clearing out the Caves of Chaos, making the area safe for human habitation" is actually one of the least likely outcomes IME.

I've seen PCs move on to other challenges while the Caves were half occupied, become leaders of orc tribes, get slaughtered by lizard men before reaching the Caves, wipe out the Keep, etc., etc. That the Caves will be entirely neutralized is actually, IME, rare. They are the gift that keeps on giving.

IMHO, once you (esp. as a GM) have decided what the end-point will be, the consequences of PC actions begin to sculpt toward that end-point, rather than flowing naturally from what has occurred. This actually removes agency from the players. Their choices matter less (sometimes much, much less), because whatever they choose, they'll always end up at (roughly) the same point.

This is one way that a good game (IMHO and IME) is not like riding a roller coaster. When you ride a roller coaster, you always know where the ride will end. When you play a good game, where things draw to a conclusion is entirely the result of the decisions of the players, filtered through the context and consequences determined by the GM. It cannot be predicted ahead of time.


RC

 

[LostSoul]

Meh.

The fun in these games -- at least the games that I am talking about -- comes from the unfolding interplay of context, choice, and consequence in an unpredictable pattern.

The result may then be told as a story, but the goal is not to "create an amazing story". The experience....the "journey" if you will....is the point of playing a role-playing game. This is rather like riding a roller coaster. Reaching the "destination" just means that the ride is over.

I must not be explaining myself well! I'm agreeing with what you're saying, and you seem to be disagreeing with what I'm saying.

Context, choice, consequences? Yes! You have authority over your character's actions not the game world? Yes! You play for the experience, not a specific end goal? Yes!

The only difference is that you set up the game in a way that highlights "problematic feature of human existence", make choices about those issues, and the consequences of your choices serve to deepen the original context - those moral and ethical issues we're dealing with.

Contrast this with "smart play" - we don't want to set up the context to focus choices and consequences of smart play. This is why you get XP for GP in AD&D and The Shadow of Yesterday relies on Keys to determine (mechanical) character growth.

Just for the record, I've run B2 in Holmes Basic, 1e, 2e, and 3e, for various groups of players over the years. "The PCs will succeed in clearing out the Caves of Chaos, making the area safe for human habitation" is actually one of the least likely outcomes IME.

Yeah, I was wrong on that one!

 

[Raven Crowking]

I must not be explaining myself well! I'm agreeing with what you're saying, and you seem to be disagreeing with what I'm saying.

Well, then you are a wise individual, and a real humanitarian to boot!

The only difference is that you set up the game in a way that highlights "problematic feature of human existence", make choices about those issues, and the consequences of your choices serve to deepen the original context - those moral and ethical issues we're dealing with.

Contrast this with "smart play" - we don't want to set up the context to focus choices and consequences of smart play. This is why you get XP for GP in AD&D and The Shadow of Yesterday relies on Keys to determine (mechanical) character growth.

If you set up a believable context, and follow-through with the naturally occurring consequences that flow from player choices, there is no contrast. Even if the players try to focus on "smart play", the in-game consequences for ignoring ethical considerations can bring the "smart" part of "smart play" into question pretty quickly.

But there is still a major difference between "In taking an ethical stand, my character can only die if I choose to let it happen" and "In taking an ethical stand, my character must bear the brunt of whatever consequences naturally occur, good or ill."

The first is, IMHO, "ethics lite" and ignores what is probably the most fundamental problems of human existence: We don't get to choose when our moral/ethical decisions come back to haunt us, or how much we have to pay to make an ethical stand.

An example of an ethical problem in a 3e version of B2: When the PCs encounter the evil clerics, I had decided to make them priests of the spider-goddess Mellythese. The players engaged the priests in debate, as part of the natural course of the game. I paraphrase the following:

PC1: But you can't sacrifice human beings! It's wrong!

Priest: We never sacrifice the innocent.

PC2: But....babies! You can't sacrifice innocent babies!

Priest: No one is born innocent....​

Needless to say, the situation was not wholly black and white.

The same group decided to use its last healing on an NPC orc they had rescued from the bugbear cave (and whose honourable behaviour they admired) rather than a more wounded PC.

The Caves themselves are automatically set up to force the players to decide what to do about the non-combatant females and young......And the PCs don't get to choose the consequences of what they decide!

(In a different setting, recently, the PCs decided to let a group of hobgoblin mercenaries go....they even let them keep their arms and armour!....on the basis of ethics.)

RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

I am reminded of this:

That's a really interesting article, particularly the section, 'The standard narrativistic model'. Although the author says he won't explain what narrativism is, I found it quite illuminating. I was struck particularly by how similar narrativist rpgs seem to traditional rpgs, with the GM setting up situations and the PCs portraying their characters (and only that).

This quote, from a little further on than the part you quoted, reads exactly like something Raven Crowking would write!

Consensus is a poor tool in driving excitement, a roleplaying game does not have teeth if you stop to ask the other players if it’s OK to actually challenge their characters.

Do you have any more links that go a bit further in explaining narrativism? I read Ron Edwards on the subject years ago, and found him rather impenetrable.

 

[Nagol]

I must not be explaining myself well! I'm agreeing with what you're saying, and you seem to be disagreeing with what I'm saying.

Context, choice, consequences? Yes! You have authority over your character's actions not the game world? Yes! You play for the experience, not a specific end goal? Yes!

The only difference is that you set up the game in a way that highlights "problematic feature of human existence", make choices about those issues, and the consequences of your choices serve to deepen the original context - those moral and ethical issues we're dealing with.

Contrast this with "smart play" - we don't want to set up the context to focus choices and consequences of smart play. This is why you get XP for GP in AD&D and The Shadow of Yesterday relies on Keys to determine (mechanical) character growth.

<snip>

So are you saying that under narrativist play the participants negotiate a dimension of context that choices and consequences will always be measured against? So the statement "This game will explore the ramifications of falsehoods and trust" would signal that situations where the PCs choices regarding teling the truth and/or believng the statements of others would be watched more carefully and drive more consequence than other activities, but the choice-->consequence chain is otherwise intact?

 

[LostSoul]

If you set up a believable context, and follow-through with the naturally occurring consequences that flow from player choices, there is no contrast. Even if the players try to focus on "smart play", the in-game consequences for ignoring ethical considerations can bring the "smart" part of "smart play" into question pretty quickly.

There should be no contrast between the consequences, I agree. The big difference lies in the choices that players make and how the other players judge those choices.

If you are going to focus on "smart play", the choices you make are going to be different from the ones you make while focusing on "thematic play" (ie. Forge Story Now), and the way the other players judge those choices will be different.

Sometimes there are contrasts between the consequences, though (and therefore the new context); I think this is because the DM will focus more on presenting a new context that reflects the theme of the game. Since we're just human and none of us know the full range of naturally-occurring consequences from any action, there's a wide range of believable ones. Personally, I want more believable consequences and choices than others who play in this style.

But there is still a major difference between "In taking an ethical stand, my character can only die if I choose to let it happen" and "In taking an ethical stand, my character must bear the brunt of whatever consequences naturally occur, good or ill."

The first is, IMHO, "ethics lite" and ignores what is probably the most fundamental problems of human existence: We don't get to choose when our moral/ethical decisions come back to haunt us, or how much we have to pay to make an ethical stand.

I agree; I would rather deal with the harsh consequences of my PC's actions if that's what's believable than be treated with kid gloves. That's probably why my PCs don't have a great survival rate in these types of games.

 

[Mallus]

To my mind, this isn't a question of consequence or context or whatever...

... it's a question of conduct.

It the group okay with the dwarven rogue's conduct? Ignoring the party's vote on selling the treasure, murdering helpful NPC necromancers, then sticking the group with bail, etc.

This isn't a trick question. In some groups that kind of abrasive, drama-bringing PC is okay, even desirable (PC's like that virtually ensure the party will be living in, ah, interesting times).

In others, they're poison. Their players are simply being pricks. It is entirely possible to role-play without pissing off the rest of the table. If you find it necessary to piss people off while role-playing, perhaps some soul-searching, or WoW PVP, is in order.

Let me be clear: a thorn-in-side PC can be a wonderful thing, so long as everyone else is game.

Does the rest of the group enjoy this kind of play? That's the only question in need of answer, and it can't be answered in-game.