Players choose what their PCs do . . .

[Umbran]

Imagine that we stole the boat and if anything should happen to the boat we can just steal another one.

Ugh. That analogy doesn't serve you well here.

Stealing suggests that someone's not going to be happy with us for taking the boat. That means there's risk, there will be consequences. We undertake a risk only if we have a purpose worth the risk. Unless we are young and stupid, we are probably not going to take the risk of stealing the boat to float aimlessly down the river. We are going to steal the boat when we have a purpose of going somewhere specific for which the boat is useful.

My personal take is that the game and these characters have no intrinsic value. Their value is in the experience we get in play. If we use them up, if they have nothing left to say, or if we no longer have an interest in following this particular fiction there are always more games and more characters.

That's fine. For you.

The interesting point in this is the "if we use them up". That's not what is happening in this analogy. It is more, "if they get caught in an eddy or run aground and won't go any farther". Those of us willing to steer are not going to end up in many backwaters by happenstance, and if we do, we can always gt ourselves back into a notable current.

We're on a joyride here. In order to get the most of them we cannot protect them. Sometimes we get 6 sessions. Sometimes 12. Sometimes 100. There's no way to tell and we wouldn't want to if we tried.

Who is this "we"?

If you want to say, "I am on a joyride here," I am more than fine with that. But, the fact that folks disagree with you suggests there's no general, "we".

 

[Campbell]

When I use we in my posts I'm generally talking about the playgroup. I'm trying to reinforce the collaborative nature of what we (the play group) are doing. That it is a journey we are all on together and how we individually play affects each other.

If you are not sitting down at the table with me I really don't care how you play - like at all. I mean I hope everyone tries different games and gets a chance to have diverse experiences.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ugh. That analogy doesn't serve you well here.

Stealing suggests that someone's not going to be happy with us for taking the boat. That means there's risk, there will be consequences. We undertake a risk only if we have a purpose worth the risk. Unless we are young and stupid, we are probably not going to take the risk of stealing the boat to float aimlessly down the river. We are going to steal the boat when we have a purpose of going somewhere specific for which the boat is useful.



That's fine. For you.

The interesting point in this is the "if we use them up". That's not what is happening in this analogy. It is more, "if they get caught in an eddy or run aground and won't go any farther". Those of us willing to steer are not going to end up in many backwaters by happenstance, and if we do, we can always gt ourselves back into a notable current.



Who is this "we"?

If you want to say, "I am on a joyride here," I am more than fine with that. But, the fact that folks disagree with you suggests there's no general, "we".

Goodness. Where on the character sheet did the non-D&D ganes touch you?

 

[Campbell]

I have always been upfront about the substantive risks in Playing Passionately (I'll use this instead of Playing With Integrity).

The first risk is the creative risk. The alchemy of these particular characters, setting, and situation might not result in a fiction the group feels like following. I mean the risk is there too in more mainstream play, but techniques can be used to make it more palatable. My own feelings here is that I would rather drop something that isn't working than have to actively manage the game. Like we can try something else next week.

The second risk is an emotional risk. Players are called on to really embody their characters and actively advocate for them. This requires emotional vulnerability and has the potential to lead to hurt feelings especially in games like Monsterhearts or My Life With Master where some pretty personal and dark stuff can be at play. Also since we are all fans of these characters we grow to care for them, but as fans we cannot protect them. Emotional safety techniques can be really important especially when PCs are at odds. Story advocacy lets groups deal with similar issues with more emotional distance, but I would argue that distance means they are not really experiencing the same thing.

So what do we (the playgroup) gain for these risks?

We get to experience the unbridled authentic version of these characters. Each player gets to push hard and advocate fully for their character. They get to feel what they feel and play to find out who they really are under adversity. As fans of these characters we get to go on the journey with them, see who they become even when its unpleasant. We also know that redemption is legitimate and hard won.

We get to feel the tension of the conflicts in the game. Because we know the adversity is honest and no one will step in as an audience we all get to experience the dramatic tension involved and know that it is real, that anything could happen. Also because we take our time getting there we all know what's at stake. Playing to find out what happens is a lot of fun.

The GM gets to focus on honest adversity and providing context. They do not need to manage the game or the players. They get to sit back and bring it. With no plots to worry about they get to authentically play the world and provide antagonism. They get to play too.

Addendum: This play style is definitely not for everyone. It can be very intense and requires a lot of discipline from all participants. You can't be too attached to outcomes and things probably won't turn out the way you want. Usually I find the end result is better than what any of us could come up with alone, but the end result is not the point. What we experience in play is what matters.

 

[Campbell]

I will be frank here. A lot of players are not looking for the same sort of experience as I am. A lot of players like having a safety net. A lot of players are looking to fulfill a certain story arc. A lot of players like to follow along with a GM plot. A lot of players are not looking for real tension. A lot of players like maintaining emotional distance from their characters.

So one huge drawback of Playing Passionately is that passive players really have no place. If I'm running Apocalypse World and I ask what your character does I expect an answer from you and nobody else. Some players do not like that kind of pressure.

Mostly what I would like to see in this community is more self awareness of trade offs between different ways of playing instead of acting like you can have everything regardless of techniques or expectations at play. I would also like to see more honesty (with ourselves and others) about what we really want.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I will be frank here. A lot of players are not looking for the same sort of experience as I am. A lot of players like having a safety net. A lot of players are looking to fulfill a certain story arc. A lot of players like to follow along with a GM plot. A lot of players are not looking for real tension. A lot of players like maintaining emotional distance from their characters.

So one huge drawback of Playing Passionately is that passive players really have no place. If I'm running Apocalypse World and I ask what your character does I expect an answer from you and nobody else. Some players do not like that kind of pressure.

Mostly what I would like to see in this community is more self awareness of trade offs between different ways of playing instead of acting like you can have everything regardless of techniques or expectations at play. I would also like to see more honesty (with ourselves and others) about what we really want.

Yup. This is pretty much why I run 5e primarily and get some Blades in on the side. My players are, as a whole, more comfortable in the 5e playstyle rather than the more edgy Blades. They like playing Blades, but only in spurts. I adapt.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would also like to see more honesty (with ourselves and others) about what we really want.

OK, Mr Morden, I'll have a go:

I want the gateway to the TTRPG hobby to be a game that doesn't suck.


Ouch... oh well, let me just make a check...
...nope, my bitterness & cynicsm values just went up, again. Apparently I'm at 'Tripple IPA' and 'insurance adjuster working past mandatory retirement,' respectively....
..let's see, in the fiction that means "small children instinctively back away from you" ok, that's actually better than when they just "got really quiet" ... what else... cynicism.. preternatural.. no...hm, I'm up to "telestial?" weird.... ok.. "your date crawls out a restroom window after your Ghandi diatribe" - Oh, see, that just breaks my immersion, I mean ... i would never....

...a /date/ ....

 

[Lanefan]

If there were no mechanics to impose discipline then I think it would be even harder to avoid story advocacy. Mechanics are what produce strange PC failures that push things where we weren't expecting, or produce sudden ends to NPCs and their plots. Upthread [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] voiced concern about "bypassing challenges" by their deployment of (especially non-combat) mechanics. That seems to be a strong version of story advocacy - that we have to play through this stuff if the game is to be what it is supposed to be.

Not entirely sure how you draw that conclusion from what I said - maybe elaborate your reasoning?

I say this because story advocacy pro-or-con wasn't in my thoughts at all when I raise the piint about bypassing challenges; my concern was more that the mechanics in question might allow the players to in effect put the game on 'easy' mode and in doing so unintentionally reduce the fun* and engagement it might otherwise offer.

* - assuming, of course, that there's more fun to be had in overcoming challenges by meeting them and putting some effort in rather than overcoming them by simply leaving them to starboard.

 

[Lanefan]

Joe is not the same as Bob. I mean, we can already tell this because Joe doesn't get XP, or have rolled stats, or a class.

Where he should, and he should, and he might if he has the ability and-or willingness.

This is one thing 3e got bang-on right: that everyone in the setting rides on the same mechanical chassis - everyone has 6 stats, everyone can in theory gain XP and-or have a class (though they could also choose not to, this being the one place 3e messed it up), and so forth...and everyone has hit points...and an armour class, even if it's 10 for most people.

Put another way, in idealistic theory where everyone's stats have been generated I should be able to take any human in the game world and make a PC out of it without changing a thing about its numbers.

Now whether the DM bothers to roll up those 6 stats for everyone - that's another question entirely. But the underlying assumption is that she could, and that anyone we meet in the setting in theory has stats on a bell-curve just like we do except until the DM rolls them up nobody knows what they are.

 

[Lanefan]

Do you feel the same concern for the 1 hp kobold or orc or goblin in all those old modules?

No, because their hit point value tells me that in relation to pretty much anything else out there they're complete pushovers.

I mean, why can't those PCs just do 1/2 a point of damage and let those humanoids have one more chance at glory?

A good and valid question; in that the hit point system is nowhere near granular enough to properly handle tiny creatures that have 1 at most along with unfortunate creatures such as these one-hit-wonder orcs and kobolds. The problem, of course, is that to make it granular enough to distinguish between a kitten and a kobold the hit point numbers for creatures that are actually tough would be crazy big. Either that, or it'd have to be on a j-curve where the difference between 1 and 2 h.p. is far less than the difference between 36 and 37 h.p., but that introduces its own can o' worms

No system for combat resolution is infinitely granular. Boundries are drawn and limits on variability set. I mean, there's a chance that any outdoor combat will be disrupted by sudden torrential rain, but I don't know any RPG that expressly provides for this in its combat resolution system.

No, but it wouldn't be that difficult to add in to a lot of systems - every so-many rounds, say; or even once every so-many combats, the DM rolls d% and on 00 something odd happens - she then checks a table which could have entries including:

- a third "side" - a creature awoken by the noise, a passing troop, something flying by, or anything else appropriate - enters the fray, initially fighting equally against everyone already involved
- someone unknown to either side is noticed by both sides to be observing the combat from a distance without - thus far - taking part in any way
- a sudden and potentially disruptive environmental change occurs:
- - - some ground gives way from below (collapse) or above (landslide)
- - - the weather changes suddenly and unexpectedly e.g. a torrential downpour begins, a strong wind arises, etc.
- - - a tree or large branch (or some rock, if underground) falls onto the battlefield potentially hitting at least one random combatant and making some terrain hazardous thenceforth
- - - smoke or fog from a known or unknown source suddenly obscures the battlefield, or parts of it
and so forth.

Hmmm...on further review the more I look at this the more I think it has some potential - I might just add it in to my own game. Thanks for the inspiration!

The notion of "internal consistency" does no work here. By "mechanical consistency" I assume you mean something like unchanging mechanical framing of the resolution. In which case your example makes no sense. If your 4e D&D game involves a 17th level PC fighting a 1st level PC the system has nothing to offer you. You're on your own.

Without difficulty I can think of a few in-fiction situations where something like this might easily arise - dozens if one of the PCs in instead a levelled NPC - and I'd say that if the system can't handle it then that's down to the system, not me.

Much the same as you can't use the AD&D mechanics to resolve the difference between taking one or three slaps of a shoe to kill that spider you found in your bedroll.

The AD&D mechanics could legitimately produce the correct result in either case (first-time killhit or a miss-miss-killhit sequence) and are thus reflective enough of reality to - in this case - be useful.

The numbers are not a model. They're a resolution system.

Then where or what is the model? (and before you answer, note that an answer of "there isn't one" renders the setting as meaningless - we might as well be playing in Robert Jordan's Tel'aran'rhiod dreamworld where things change based on whatever a given dreamer happens to dream in the moment)

An 8th level Ogre Savage has AC 19 and 111 hp. A 16th level Ogre Bludgeoneer has AC 28 and 1 hp (and never takes damage on a miss, because a minion). Which is tougher?

It's a trick question - they're of the same toughness, each wearing hide armour and wielding a greatclub, but statted differently for different resolution contexs.

Which tells me how tough they are relative to the PCs they're facing right this minute; but tells me absolutely nothing about how tough they are relative to each other or to anything else in the setting or to how tough they were yesterday or last week, which makes those numbers utterly useless for anything else beyond here-and-now interaction. Waste of time - why even bother?

Put another way, there's more to a setting than just the PCs. They're just a few of a great many inhabitants in it.

This is the same for the ogre savage and ogre bludgeoneer. There toughness relative to the rest of the world is what it is. It is a feature of the fiction. It doesn't need to be statted out. That's not what stats are for - they're not tools for zoologists and ecologists

No. They're tools for setting builders and-or encounter designers.

they're tools for players of a game wishing to resolve action declaratoins in that game.

How can they be tools for players doing anything? Hit points, AC, and so forth (usually) are not player-side information.