Um, sure. Not at all what I was talking about, but yeah that would suck. We've moved way past the low hanging fruit of arbitrary GM whim here, but we can agree that it's a bad example of restricting agency.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Pretty sure, given the last time this came up, that "control mechanics" means magical mind control. @Lanefan is not big at all at having a social contest end up with the PC having to accept a consequence of being swayed as a result of a hard failure as can happen in some games. Lanefan is very much a traditional D&D player, where the PC is absolutely under the player's control absent magical mind control effects. Why magical mind control effects are okay, not sure, I guess because they are in the rules?
To be fair, magical mind control (or not magical) without some kind of mechanic or at least contractual consent is pretty egregious. The above is much more likely a system outcome of a system he would probably never play though, as I don't think even the forciest of force GMs would try and pull that shenanigans out of the blue by fiat.
Hussar
Legend
So, the rules for Cthulhu Dark told you what your setting was (the play field)? You did not create a single thing in that setting that was not defined by the rules? Your scenario, whatever it was, was 100% defined by the rules of the game? You could follow what was written down in the rulebook, step by step, minute by minute, and never created a single element in the game that wasn't defined by the rules?
I'd like to see that.
Hussar
Legend
It's more than that though. Not only is someone designing the campaign or setting before anyone can play, but, they continuously design the campaign and setting IN PLAY. And none of the changes that are made have any rules basis. They are completely in service to that campaign, but, the rules of the game are utterly silent on the issue.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Oh, for sure, but it's definitely a risk in some systems where PCs aren't as inviolable as in D&D. The outcome of a Duel of Wits in Burning Wheel, for example, can result in the PC being bound by the opposing argument.
When I run D&D, though, I avoid any stink of this like the plague. I have plenty of power and authority but it doesn't run to controlling the PCs -- that's the player's sole bailiwick. I even have issues and will rarely, if ever, deploy mind magic on PCs. Again, I have infinite dragons, why do I need your PC? When I do, rarely, use mind magics on PCs, it's thematic to moment (master vampires) and I try to use it in a way that places constraints rather than direct actions.
When I run Blades in the Dark, though, being possessed by a vengeful spirit is bad juju, and I'll do it in a heartbeat -- if the mechanics allow. Similarly, losing a social contest will have binding results; likely not "you believe the NPC" but I'm not ruling that out as a valid hard move. Completely different play aesthetic.
Yeah, I agree. I have the same approach to D&D as opposed to other games. I think the main difference is that the social contract that governs the tables those other are played at allows for the 'force' in question. People who don't play those games are going to find the whole idea very foreign and upsetting. To which I say try it before you hate it, but not everyone needs to try every game.
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
Reading more of @lowkey13's points, and learning more about what diegetic means, I think that I'm largely in line, or at least nodding as I read, with what he's saying. An RPG is:
Which is pretty much exactly what I've been trying to say. An RPG isn't simply the rules of that game, but, the interaction of those rules and that specific group within their narrative framework.
Which does make discussion of theory somewhat more difficult. Imagine trying to discuss a movie where the ending is different for every person that watches it. Even with things like modules or canned adventures, my experience, your experience and her experience can be entirely different. Which makes creating a discussion framework difficult because we share so little frame of reference.
Really, one has only to look at various "this is broken" style discussions. How many times have you read one and thought, "Huh? This isn't broken at all. It works perfectly fine." or, "What a tempest in a teacup. This doesn't matter". There are so many variables to account for, that I'm not sure any common common critical framework can be created.
I mean, put it this way. What advice, other than the most surface level, could you give to me, who runs campaigns that last for months, that would equally apply to @Lanefan, whose campaigns run for decades?
"A role-playing game is what is created in the interaction between players or between player(s) and gamemaster(s) within a specified diegetic framework."
Which is pretty much exactly what I've been trying to say. An RPG isn't simply the rules of that game, but, the interaction of those rules and that specific group within their narrative framework.
Which does make discussion of theory somewhat more difficult. Imagine trying to discuss a movie where the ending is different for every person that watches it. Even with things like modules or canned adventures, my experience, your experience and her experience can be entirely different. Which makes creating a discussion framework difficult because we share so little frame of reference.
Really, one has only to look at various "this is broken" style discussions. How many times have you read one and thought, "Huh? This isn't broken at all. It works perfectly fine." or, "What a tempest in a teacup. This doesn't matter". There are so many variables to account for, that I'm not sure any common common critical framework can be created.
I mean, put it this way. What advice, other than the most surface level, could you give to me, who runs campaigns that last for months, that would equally apply to @Lanefan, whose campaigns run for decades?
Last edited:
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Never mind that your games, if I'm not mistaken, are all run online where mine are at an actual table (meaning the social interaction is liable to differ considerably between our two milieus)
I actually think there's quite a bit of advice that would apply to us both, only we'd use it differently. For example, someone advising us to "put some consideration into your game's level-advance rate" would probably lead to you speeding it up and me slowing it down; but the root advice is still germane to both of us.
Hussar
Legend
Oh, totally. And, please, I was only using you as an example, not intending any sort of snark at all. We tend to be on the opposite ends of the campaign length spectrum is all.
But, yeah, I play online with people I have never and will never meet. Before, I used to play with strangers almost entirely. Until the last few years, the longest lasting group I'd ever had was maybe 2 years and probably less. Yet, we both play the same "game". For a given value of game anyway.
