Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[pemerton]

How did the character in your game of Prince Valiant earn their Storyteller Certificate?

Here is the general rule for certificates and for gold stars (Prince Valiant pp 55-56):

[The Storyteller] may award a Certificate to any player as a reward for good acting or other reasons. . . . Storytellers can use gold stars to reward good players.​

In our game the certificate and gold star are merged together, in that one possible use of a certificate is to add a gold star to th PC sheet.

In our most recent session, one certificate was awarded, when a player's PC prayed in Hagia Sophia )player action declaration) and had a vision and had the worst of his wounds heal (consequence). The last time that player earned a certificate was when he introduced himself to a traveller (action declartaion) and the traveller recognised him from tales of his exploits (consequence).

My general principle is that if I think a moment of play is particularly exciting, amusing, or evocative of the character, I award a certificate. In 13 sessions I think 10 or so have been awarded. Currently one is unspent.

Also, I found this looking for the above (pp 40-41):

If the task of Storyteller becomes burdensome, most likely through disagreement from the players, something is wrong. Stop the game and have a discussion with the players about what they expect. Remain open to their opinions. Remember, this is a shared fantasy. . . .

Respect is critical to play. The storyteller must respect the players as well as vice versa. No cooperation is possible without respect. This is not an opportunity to lord your knowledge over others - it is a sharing. This is not an opportunity to abuse the characters with your power - no one will play if you do.

Ask the other players their opinions in sticky situations. The cooperative effort will be fortified. You are not trying to be omniscient - the Storyteller is a guide.​

This is the sort of thing I have in mind in talking about the "credibility test" being a consensual rather than unilateral matter.

 

[prabe]

@prabe

Here is where I think your analysis of Fate hits a snag. I also wonder if it intersects with the conversation about mundane "mind control."

It might do, but maybe not in the way/s you think. As has emerged elsewhere in this thread, I have remarkably little problem with mind-control effects inside the game (psychic super-villains, mental parasites, whatever). It's when they come from outside the fiction--when the GM or another player starts reaching into my character--that I get angry.

1) The Aspect/Compel tech in Fate has been cribbed (at least in spirit) by many other games. At its core, it boils down to (a) player signals to table-at-large that they want thematic thing x to be a cornerstone of their character's conflict (both subversive and a bulwark...as cornerstones tend to be), (b) hence test this thing, (c) hence, I accept that the collision of (a) and (b) will likely lead to a severe challenge to the conception of my PC up-to-and-including an evolution where thematic thing x changes (perhaps flipping on its head entirely).

I think the system of incentives in the game argue against it being as much about challenging the player's conception of the character as you seem to think. Fate Points are too valuable to ever turn one down, so there's a powerful incentive to inflict more and more badness on your character (or perhaps more accurately to allow the GM to).

2) Neuro/cognitive science consensus has accreted around the theory that human agency is considerably less than what individual human perception believes it to be and what civilization is premised upon.

Yeah, people have less control over themselves than they think, but I've seen stuff about the neuroscience (which isn't at all my field) and it's my understanding there are holes in that thinking, at least the parts of it based on what I'll describe as weirdness in event timing (the bit about a finger moving before the impulse to move it).

3) I not only don't bat an eye about the idea of a combination of exogenous (social pressure, circumstance) and endogenous (the endocrine system, someone's conception of themself, perception bias, genes that have been turned on with no will being in the mix) leading to a loss of agency in mundane circumstances (an American PoW in a Chinese PoW camp falling prey to the slow trickle of "re-education" machinery, someone becoming smitten by another person to the point of behavior they would consider deranged upon introspection, a false confession after someone has been in a traumatic situation and then leaned on for 36 hours by the police, a person who is typically lacking in aggression and physicality finding themselves kicking a downed person when incited mob behavior and social pressure converge, someone who is simultaneously riddled with extreme self-doubt but saddled with an extreme sense of purpose, etc)...but the visceral experience of habitation becomes increased in proportion.

If I'm playing a real person (even a hero) who could fall prey to any number of the mundane agency-stealing moments of life (which every_single_person can have their perceived autonomy taken from them...because biology)...and I have it imposed on me (as happens in real life...its not a choice), that enhances immersion for me. Autonomous pantomiming falling prey to something (addiction or any of the things I mentioned above)? I struggle to find how that could remotely be immersive? How is it rewarding and/or bulwarking to one's conception of self when the integral "internal struggle to overcome" isn't actually integral or sincere...it (the struggle and the output of that struggle) becomes borderline farce (from a first principles perspective).

If I'm playing a character in a TRPG, I don't particularly want things like that imposed from outside the fiction. It stops feeling like my character against the world and starts feeling like me, the player, against the GM.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean.....AC is a thing in the game. Anger class isn't. This is my point. mechanics exist for the combat in order to make things clearly understood. Otherwise, it would be like playing war with your friends in the backyard as kids. "I shot you!"- "NO! I shot you first!!"

No mechanics seem to have been deployed to resolve the insult. This is my point. The DM has decided by fiat that this is impossible, and so no roll is needed.

AC is there to modify the difficulty of the challenge. The primary way to gain exp in D&D is from combat, so much of the game is set up around that.

It's also not true that no mechanics were deployed to resolve the insult. The game mechanic of "The DM decides whether something is an auto success, auto failure, or uncertain." was employed. A mechanic is not required to be random.

How does a player assess this kind of situation? The reasoning is hidden, and whether or not mechanics will even be used is unclear.

The same way as vague armor class. We are a social people. We know the most likely results of insulting a despot who is easily triggered by insults. One in which they've been told stories about how he has acted. These players likely had a more accurate understanding of what would be the likely result of that insult than if they had been told, "The dragon is armored."

I disagree. Again, this is my point about the Baron's temperament....the PCs have been given unclear information consisting of narrative details that we cannot understand if or how they translate into game mechanics.

At this point all I can is that I and my players don't seem to have any trouble whatsoever understanding these narrative details when they are described to us. I don't understand why you have so many issues with it.

So when the DM says "The Baron is mad, and believes that his festivals of the sun keep his village safe, and he punishes the townsfolk who challenge him." Is this a cue for something the PCs are meant to overcome, such as a high AC? Or is this a cue that the Baron cannot be reasoned with at all? Is it a cue that great care needs to be taken in interacting with him?

It's a very strong cue not to challenge him on the festival of the sun. It's also a cue to be very careful with what you say and how you say it, because........insane. It's further a cue to avoid talking to him at all, since.....insane.

I'd also say that a player insulting such a personage is also giving the rest of the table the cue of......insane.

You'll insist that it's the last. My point is that there's no way for the players to know that.

I know it. It's pretty darn obvious, because......insane.

Sure, why not? Do you think the PCs look like villagers?

Nope. Neither do his guards, though. I see no reason that looks should clue him in that they are stronger than his guards, which outnumber the PCs.

Who says you're suspended over air? My character realized he couldn't make it, and skidded to a halt at the ledge.

Then he didn't make the attempt to jump the chasm. He wisely aborted his attempt.

 

[prabe]

Here is the general rule for certificates and for gold stars (Prince Valiant pp 55-56):

[The Storyteller] may award a Certificate to any player as a reward for good acting or other reasons. . . . Storytellers can use gold stars to reward good players.​

In our game the certificate and gold star are merged together, in that one possible use of a certificate is to add a gold star to th PC sheet.

Thank you for the explanation. I don't know if I was clear, but as reward for good play (a paraphrase) is also a possible source for Hero Points in Mutants and Masterminds. (Which seems like at least a partial parallel, which is a way to help me understand.)

In our most recent session, one certificate was awarded, when a player's PC prayed in Hagia Sophia )player action declaration) and had a vision and had the worst of his wounds heal (consequence). The last time that player earned a certificate was when he introduced himself to a traveller (action declartaion) and the traveller recognised him from tales of his exploits (consequence).

You described the Certificate earlier as an auto-win. Are there limitations or restrictions on that? Also ... clearly there's something in the fiction that led the PC to pray in Hagia Sophia and introduce himself, so the player could declare those actions expecting those results to be among the possible consequences? I figure there's some elision happening, there, because I don't see the recognition as described as a consequence I'd expect of an introduction, but I'll gladly admit that I don't know your table, and I don't know the game, and the way my mind works would probably cause problems for everyone--most of all me--if I were to play it.

My general principle is that if I think a moment of play is particularly exciting, amusing, or evocative of the character, I award a certificate. In 13 sessions I think 10 or so have been awarded. Currently one is unspent.

That's not an unreasonable set of criteria. As a GM I worry about playing favorites with something like that, but that's about my failings--not anyone else's.

Also, I found this looking for the above (pp 40-41):

If the task of Storyteller becomes burdensome, most likely through disagreement from the players, something is wrong. Stop the game and have a discussion with the players about what they expect. Remain open to their opinions. Remember, this is a shared fantasy. . . .​

​

Respect is critical to play. The storyteller must respect the players as well as vice versa. No cooperation is possible without respect. This is not an opportunity to lord your knowledge over others - it is a sharing. This is not an opportunity to abuse the characters with your power - no one will play if you do.​

​

Ask the other players their opinions in sticky situations. The cooperative effort will be fortified. You are not trying to be omniscient - the Storyteller is a guide.​

This is the sort of thing I have in mind in talking about the "credibility test" being a consensual rather than unilateral matter.

That doesn't sound like horrible general GMing advice, really. The only thing I'd maybe have an issue with the "The Storyteller is a guide." It sounds more like the GM choosing the path of the story than I think fits--in your games or in mine--but there's very probably some context I'm missing.

 

[pemerton]

Wouldn't allowing a player a say in whether his own declaration was credible bring back one of the problems that having a GM is supposed to solve?

<snip>

What I'm saying is that there's not a lot of difference between "the GM [not the player] says no" and "the table [not the player] says no."

<snip>

My point in quoting the 5E DMG at you is that a DM in 5E who doesn't run decisions by the table for concensus isn't necessarily operating in bad faith. They're just doing what the rules tell them to do.

I'm not talking about "bad faith" GMing. I'm talking about what sort of GMing can help make for satisfying RPGing in a non-OSR-ish context.

I think there is a big difference between the GM says no and the table says no. The player is a participant at the table, and hence table conensus is a result of the player's exercise of agency.

I'm not sure what problem you think having a player participate in establishing credibility will give rise to. In my experience it helps generate and reinforce a sense of immersion in the shared fiction.

Fate literally gives the players the ability to change the facts of a scene by spending a Fate Point, in a way that is explicitly not limited by what their characters can do. It's more like a fourth-wall-breaking cartoon (such as Duck Amuck) where there is animation of an animator's eraser and pencil changing the scene around the characters. That seems pretty explicitly to be both player agency and narrative authority.

<snip>

If a player successfully kicks down a door, that changes the fiction; some games (some tables) have the player narrate the door flying open in the requisite cloud of splinters, others have the GM do so. In Fate I have specifically asked a player (after a relevant roll) "What's going on in this town? Tell me [some number, I think three] things." That is very specifically about narrative authority, I think (though you might prefer a different term for it.

However, when discussing the concept at a high level rather than from the within the frame of how you play, it's a stumbling block for understanding. I can't speak for @pemerton, but I certainly don't see use of a FATE point to add some fiction to a scene, or leveraging a Flashback in Blades as somehow special or set aside from declaring PC actions in pursuit of player agency. They're all just tools in the toolbox. There's nothing inherently special about declaring actions for your PC that elevates it to a higher tier of relevance. Granted, the focus of most RPGs is to inhabit a character, so it's certainly going to be an almost required tool in play, and often the most common tool. But it's not the only tool and it's commonality doesn't mean other tools shouldn't be considered equally in looking at how a player can make choices and realize those choices about the in-game fiction.

I agree with Ovinomancer and would go further: this is very often about what the PC is doing.

A flashback is about something the PC did. What tales have you heard of this place? centres the character as the recipient of information. Is there a chandelier for me to swing on? is in effect an action declaration (I look for a chandelier). Spending a point to make these sorts of things true is just auto-success.

All right. In principle--as in, it would seem to be to be by-the-book--a GM in Fate can place a Compel on a character whose player has no Fate Points, and because it costs a Fate Point to turn down a Compel, the player would have no way to refuse it--as I remember the rules, the player isn't even allowed to use that Fate Point in a check generated by that Compel. It is in principle possible for a Compel to be about a character's actions. (The example I saw floated was using a Compel to force a PC to steal something from their employer.) I can think of at least one player who violently dislikes that. (Hint: It's @prabe )

I've never played or GMed Fate. Is it considered good GMing practice to compel someone when they have no Fate point? My gut feel is that the more conventional thing would be to compel them to tempt them into spending their last point.

 

[prabe]

I'm not talking about "bad faith" GMing. I'm talking about what sort of GMing can help make for satisfying RPGing in a non-OSR-ish context.

I think there is a big difference between the GM says no and the table says no. The player is a participant at the table, and hence table conensus is a result of the player's exercise of agency.

I'm not sure what problem you think having a player participate in establishing credibility will give rise to. In my experience it helps generate and reinforce a sense of immersion in the shared fiction.

I worry about the player maybe explicitly having a dog in the fight, so to speak, especially if that player was the one who proposed the action in question. I mean, even if the player isn't advocating hard for his character, it seems reasonable that he thinks it's credible and that he wants it to happen.

I don't see the difference between the table saying no and the GM saying no as being as substantial as you do. I am not running an OSR-style game (or, at least, I would say I'm not doing so), and I don't think that GMing the way I am is making for unsatisfying RPGing for the players at the tables I'm GMing for (and I think you're endeavoring to point out potential hazards, not my own failures).

A flashback is about something the PC did. What tales have you heard of this place? centres the character as the recipient of information. Is there a chandelier for me to swing on? is in effect an action declaration (I look for a chandelier). Spending a point to make these sorts of things true is just auto-success.

Using tools from outside the fiction--maybe even including auto-wins; I'd have to think on that--doesn't feel to me as though it's the character doing it. I think my thoughts on why I detest the GM meddling with my character by use of something like Compels, but shrug off a villain turning my character into a temporary puppet, are clear.

I've never played or GMed Fate. Is it considered good GMing practice to compel someone when they have no Fate point? My gut feel is that the more conventional thing would be to compel them to tempt them into spending their last point.

Without looking at the book, I'd say it's at least not called out as bad GMing. If there are any statements that it's different than sucking their Fate Points dry, I don't think they're any more strongly-phrased than the text in the 5E DMG about when to call for a roll on an Ability Check.

 

[pemerton]

I don't get to change the direction of the fiction, I just get to change the framing of the scene: I can use a Fate Point (and an Aspect my character has) to turn a random mook into my character's college roommate, but that doesn't define how the fiction progresses outside that scene.

<snip>

I want it to be my character's story, not my story (multiplied by the number of characters/players).

<snip>

games that use such metagame rules aren't TRPGs--because they force the players to divorce themselves from their characters, to want something other than what their characters want, to act in the game differently from what their characters arguably should.

That's a bit off-center. A GM in FATE can offer a Compel, and the player cannot refuse it if they don't have FATE points to spend to counter it, but the only thing the GM can Compel are the traits that the player chose for their character that represent the trouble or issue that character has. In other words, the GM can only compel you to, well, play your character as you defined them. It is a loss of agency? Absolutely -- you aren't making the choice to engage in that flaw right now otherwise. Is it the same loss of agency as a dominate person? Absolutely not -- you did get a choice in what could be Compelled whereas you do not get any choices with Dominate Person. Does this distinction matter? Well, if you're going to be upset at the concept of Compelling and feel it's a usurpation of your right to control your character, then no, not really. But, in a clear analysis, these things are different.

Following on from my post just upthread:

Ovinomancer's view is the same as my own: a Compel in Fate trades on a character aspect, which means that it's not an instance of the character acting differently from what s/he wants or what s/he arguably should do.

And the example of the college room-mate is exactly an instance of what I said in that earlier post responding to @Ovinomancer: my character looks around and sees a friendly face. It's an auto-success on the (perhaps implicit) action declaration Do I see anyone I know here?

In Marvel Heroic this doesn't even cost a resource, and Wolverine's player gets 1 XP every time s/he tells us how Wolverine recognises someone in the scene as "and old ally or foe" (under the Old Friends, Old Enemies milestone).

The Certificate @pemerton has mentioned in Prince Valiant, he's described as an auto-win, which seems different (and may be why he doesn't think of it as a metagame instrument/mechanic).

In our most recent session, a certificate was spent to Kill a Foe in Combat (pp 45-46), namely, the "dragon" that had tried to overturn the PCs' vessel and had tipped two of them into the water:

Any enemy, whether newly made or long known, can be destroyed with this Special Effect, guaranteed, as long as the selected character [ie the one doing the killing] is armed and capable of serious offensive action. The character must be in combat with the chosen foe at the moment, and not in a disadvantageous situation (surrounded by enemies, injured, his back turned to the enemy). The selected character makes an attack, and the attack is miraculously successful, killing the foe instantly.​

In the previous session, the PCs had encountered the Bone Laird, in D&D terms an undead, who was haunting a Dacian forest with his retinue as a result of some ancient curse. Two of the PCs figured there must be a location (eg his former home) that the curse was linked to, and hurried through the forest looking for it. They spent a certificate to Find Something Hidden (p 45):

An item which is lost, hidden, or otherwise concealed is discovered almost by accident by a character. The thing must be relatively close at hand, and the character must be searching for it at the moment. For example, knowing that a treasure is hidden somewhere in the kingdom of Cornwall is not specific information enough to put this Special Effect into action. But knowing that the treasure is hidden in a garden, or a keep, or other limited area qualifies.​

As I said, these are auto-successes on action declarations (I kill the dragon with my sword by striking its soft underbelly; We hurry through the forest looking for the old home of the Bone Laird).

 

[prabe]

Following on from my post just upthread:

Ovinomancer's view is the same as my own: a Compel in Fate trades on a character aspect, which means that it's not an instance of the character acting differently from what s/he wants or what s/he arguably should do.

And the example of the college room-mate is exactly an instance of what I said in that earlier post responding to @Ovinomancer: my character looks around and sees a friendly face. It's an auto-success on the (perhaps implicit) action declaration Do I see anyone I know here?

I was thinking specifically about one of a number of mooks sent to commit mayhem on my character, but that's not super-relevant. I really want to be clear that in the paragraph from which you pulled that description of why some people say those games aren't TRPGs I was reporting someone else's opinion, not my own. I thought that was clear in what I wrote.

In our most recent session, a certificate was spent to Kill a Foe in Combat (pp 45-46), namely, the "dragon" that had tried to overturn the PCs' vessel and had tipped two of them into the water:

Any enemy, whether newly made or long known, can be destroyed with this Special Effect, guaranteed, as long as the selected character [ie the one doing the killing] is armed and capable of serious offensive action. The character must be in combat with the chosen foe at the moment, and not in a disadvantageous situation (surrounded by enemies, injured, his back turned to the enemy). The selected character makes an attack, and the attack is miraculously successful, killing the foe instantly.​

In the previous session, the PCs had encountered the Bone Laird, in D&D terms an undead, who was haunting a Dacian forest with his retinue as a result of some ancient curse. Two of the PCs figured there must be a location (eg his former home) that the curse was linked to, and hurried through the forest looking for it. They spent a certificate to Find Something Hidden (p 45):

An item which is lost, hidden, or otherwise concealed is discovered almost by accident by a character. The thing must be relatively close at hand, and the character must be searching for it at the moment. For example, knowing that a treasure is hidden somewhere in the kingdom of Cornwall is not specific information enough to put this Special Effect into action. But knowing that the treasure is hidden in a garden, or a keep, or other limited area qualifies.​

As I said, these are auto-successes on action declarations (I kill the dragon with my sword by striking its soft underbelly; We hurry through the forest looking for the old home of the Bone Laird).

Thanks also for this unpacking of the game. I have a strong suspicion I'm not a player well-suited for it, but I'm pleased that it exists and (apparently) works as well as it does.

 

[pemerton]

I worry about the player maybe explicitly having a dog in the fight, so to speak, especially if that player was the one who proposed the action in question. I mean, even if the player isn't advocating hard for his character, it seems reasonable that he thinks it's credible and that he wants it to happen.

I agree that the player has a dog in the fight. But I don't see the problem with that. I don't think it hurts the game for the ficiton to trend in the direction the players want.

Here are some concrete examples, from epic tier 4e D&D I've bolded the bits where players estabish credibiity; in the second quote that would mean bolding lots of it so for the sorcerer's plan I haven't bolded beyond the introduction to it):

Anticipating the likelihood of an assault on Lolth before I left home for the session, I had packed my copy of Q1, which I now broke out. I also discovered that the module is not very user-friendly for someone who hasn't actually read through it since many years ago. It also has a lot of filler.

One thing that was obvious, however, was that the Tower was too big to fit in the web tunnels. So I described the Tower tearing the webs asunder, leading to souls flowing out of them and into the howling Abyss. The paladin (of the Raven Queen) spoke a prayer [resolved as a Religion check], however, to funnel the souls out of the Abyss and into the Shadowfell to cross the Bridge that May be Traversed But Once. (This mysterious place in the Shadowfell used to be guarded by Ometh, a strange exarch of the Raven Queen, but the PCs killed Ometh and the paladin - a Marshall of Letherna - has more-or less taken his place.)

This also had the effect of imposing a -2 penalty on the sorcerer's Demonsoul Bolt attacks, as his supply of demonsouls dwindled.

The players decided that the PCs would use the Tower to tear through the Demonweb to its centre, looking for Lolth. This seemed reasonable, and also meant that we could skip all the filler! The only bit that I could properly remember was the powerful drow in the pyramid room, so as the Tower flew past their door they came out, and the one with sufficient range (a drow archmage with a range 20 venom attack - I was using stats from the MM3 drow entry) took an unsuccessful pot-shot before being blasted in return by the lightning from the base of the Tower.

In my capacity as GM I decided that Lolth had had enough of a bunch of upstarts in a Thundercloud Tower tearing through her realm and thumbing their noses at her most powerful servants, so she manifested herself in the centre of the plane

<snip>

I determined that it would take the six drow NPCs 5 rounds to catch up to the Tower and Lolth. The paladin player explained that he wanted to use his control over the flow of souls to create disruptions in the Demonweb to slow them down, and I though that sounded reasonable and so gave the players an extra round. Six rounds to defeat a solo Lolth.

It then came to the drow sorcerer's turn. In an email a few days ago the player had told me that he had a plan to seal off the Abyssal rift created by the tearing of the Demonwebs and the killing of Lolth [only Lolth's webs had been keeping ultimate chaos of the Abys at bay], that relied upon the second law of thermodynamics. Now was the time for him to explain it. It took quite a while at the table (20 minutes? Maybe more? There was a lot of interjection and discussion). Here is the summary version:

* The second law of thermodynamics tells us that time and entropy are correlated: increases in entropy from moment to moment are indicative of the arrow of time;

* Hence, when entropy reaches its maximum state - and so cannot increase - time has stopped;

* Hence, if an effect that would normally last until the end of the encounter could be turned into an effect of ultimate chaos (entropy), time would stop in respect of the effect and it would not come to an end.

So far, so good, but how is this helping to seal off the Abyss?

* Earlier in the encounter the sorcerer had created a Cloak of Winter Storm which, using an elemental swapping item, was actually a zone of thunder (larger than normal because created while a Huge primordial [as per his Epic Destiny of Emergent Primordial]) that caused shift 1 sq which, through various feat combos, was actually teleportation;

* If this could be extended in size, and converted into a zone of ultimate entropy instead of just a zone of thunder, then it would not come to an end (for the reasons given above);

* Furthermore, anyone who approached it would slow down (as time came to a stop with the increase in entropy) and, if they hit it, be teleported back 1 square;

* As to how a zone of elemental thunder might be converted into a zone of ultimate entropy, that's what a chaos sorcerer is for - especially as, at that time, the Slaad lord of Entropy, Ygorl, was trapped inside the Crystal of Ebon Flame and so control over entropy was arguably unclaimed by any other entity and hence available to be claimed by the sorcerer PC.

But couldn't someone who wanted to pass through this entropic barrier just teleport from one side to the other?

* On his turn, the sorcerer therefore spent his move action to stand from prone (I can't now remember why he had started the session prone), and used his minor action to activate his Cloud of Darkness - through which only he can see;

* He then readied his standard action to help the invoker/wizard perform the mighty feat of Arcana that would merge the darkness and the zone into a visually and physically impenetrable entropic field, through which nothing could pass unless able to teleport without needing line of sight.

Unfortunately, the invoker/wizard wasn't ready to help with this plan, and had doubts about its chaotic aspect. On his turn, he instead rescued the paladin and fighter PCs who had become trapped in the Abyssal rift (by casting Tide of the First Storm to wash them back up onto the top of the PCs' Thundercloud Tower).

He also used his Erathis's Beacon blessing - a heal effect - to instead cast Remove Affliction as a minor action rather than the normal 1 hour ritual, which rescued the dwarf PC from Far Realm-induced protoplasmic helplessness. (As is the convention in the game, this non-standard use permanently exhausted the blessing.) The healing unfortunately reduced the dwarf fighter to unconsciousness, but his Ring of Pelor (I can't remember now what it's name is in the rulebook) activated and he turned into a cloud of ash, ready to recorporate next round with half his hit points back, and to take on Pazuzu if necessary.

The paladin then used his turn to bodily pick up the drow and carry him into the control circle of the Tower (at the drow's request).

Pazuzu's turn came around, but he did not re-emerge from the rift. This caused some speculation, but there was a general consensus that he could probably survive the harsh Abyssal forces and so mightn't suffer in the same way the PCs had upon being sucked in.

The drow's turn then came around. He used his move action to fly the Tower up and out of the two zones (darkness and thunder). He then used a minor action to cast Stretch Spell - as written, a range-boosting effect but it seemed fitting, in spirit, to try to extend and compress zones to create a barrier of ultimate, impenetrable entropy. And then he got ready to make his Arcana check as a standard action.

Now INT is pretty much a dump stat for everyone in the party but the invoker/wizard. In the case of the sorcerer it is 12 - so with training and level, he has an Arcana bonus of +20. So when I stated that the DC was 41, it looked a bit challenging. (It was always going to be a Hard check - if any confirmation was needed, the Rules Compendium suggests that manipulating the energies of a magical phenomenon is a Hard Arcana improvisation.)

So he started looking around for bonuses. As a chaos mage, he asked whether he could burn healing surges for a bonus on the roll - giving of his very essence. I thought that sounded reasonable, and so allowed 4 surges for +8. Unfortunately he had only 2 surges left, so the other half of the bonus had to come from taking damage equal to his bloodied value - which was OK, as he was currently unbloodied.

He scraped another +2 from somewhere (I can't remember now), brining the roll needed down to 11. The dice was rolled - and came up 18! So he succeeded in converting his zones of darkness and thunder into a compressed, extended, physically and visually impenetrable entropic barrier, in which time doesn't pass (and hence the effects don't end), sealing off the Abyss at its 66th layer.

The unfortunate side effect, as was clarified between me (as GM) and the player before the action was declared, was that - as the effects never end - so he can never recharge his Cloak of Darkness encounter power or his Cloak of the Winter Storm daily.

A modest price to pay for cementing the defeat of Lolth and sealing off the bottom of the Abyss from the rest of creation.

I think that these examples illustrates pretty clear the (2a), (2b) distinction I stated upthread: first establishing feasibility/credibility by way of table consensus; then framing the action and resolving it by way of "say 'yes' or roll the dice".

In those posts there are two examples of rolling the dice: funnelling the souls across The Bridge That May Be Traversed But Once, and sealing the Abyss. There are more examples of "saying 'yes'": allowing the Thundercloud Tower to tear through the Demonwebs; allowing the previous successful Religion check to allow using the flow of souls to slow down the NPCs; allowing the Beacon to be permanentely expended in order to allow the rapid performance of a ritual; allowing Strech Spell to feed into the plan to seal the Abyss; allowing the chaos sorcerer to give of his essence to power his attempt to seal the Abyss.

Two of those examples of saying "yes" trade on the system's resource econcomy (and so are a bit like, though obviously not identical to, spending a Fate point or a Storyteller Certificate): expending the Beacon, and spending healing surges and hit points for the buff to the check. Having a robust resource economy in a game supports effective GMing in my view, especially when the game has lots of moving parts as D&D tends to.

In my view these examples of play illustrate a relative high degree of player agency in respect of the shared fiction. I think they show how that differs from what I have called "puzzle-solving" play. I also think they show an approach to RPGing that is quite different from OSR-ish/"delve"/dungeoncrawl play.

Now the maths and resource economy of 4e D&D tend to be weighted in favour of player success, which is what helps make it a game of gonzo high-fantasy. Here is another example, from Burning Wheel, which involves failure:

The rogue wizard, Jobe, had a relationship with his brother and rival.

<snip>

I had pulled out my old Greyhawk material and told them they were starting in the town of Hardby, half-way between the forest (where the assassin [Halika] had fled from) and the desert hills (where Jobe had been travelling), and so each came up with a belief around that: I'm not leaving Hardby without gaining some magical item to use against my brother [was Jobe's.]

<snip>

I started things in the Hardby market: Jobe was looking at the wares of a peddler of trinkets and souvenirs, to see if there was anything there that might be magical or useful for enchanting for the anticipated confrontation with his brother. Given that the brother is possessed by a demon, he was looking for something angelic. The peddler pointed out an angel feather that he had for sale, brought to him from the Bright Desert. Jobe (who has, as another instinct, to always use Second Sight), used Aura Reading to study the feather for magical traits. The roll was a failure, and so he noticed that it was Resistant to Fire (potentially useful in confronting a Balrog) but also cursed. (Ancient History was involved somehow here too, maybe as a FoRK into Aura Reading (? I can't really remember), establishing something about an ancient battle between angels and demons in the desert.)

My memory of the precise sequence of events is hazy, but in the context the peddler was able to insist on proceeding with the sale, demanding 3 drachmas (Ob 1 resource check). As Jobe started haggling a strange woman (Halika) approached him and offered to help him if he would buy her lunch. Between the two of them, the haggling roll was still a failure, and also the subsequent Resources check: so Jobe got his feather but spent his last 3 drachmas, and was taxed down to Resources 0. They did get some more information about the feather from the peddler, however - he bought it from a wild-eyed man with dishevelled beard and hair, who said that it had come from one of the tombs in the Bright Desert.

Jobe, being unable to buy Halika any lunch, suggested he might be able to find some work for them instead.​

Again there is no hint of RPG-as-puzzle. The player establishes the credibility of the peddler selling something angelic; of such a thing being useful in confronting a Balrog; and the credibility of knowing something from ancient history about such things as battels between angels and demons. But the action resolution fails, and so the feather is not as desirable as had been hoped, because it is cursed.

 

[Campbell]

In general I am not fan of FATE. Based on what @pemerton has said about it I would likely bounce off of Prince Valiant, but would probably enjoy the scenarios. I think a lot of the games @pemerton likes have the possibility (although not the inevitability) of being played as story advocacy games where play tends to revolve around competing visions of how the story should go. My preference is to play games that are strongly rooted in character advocacy. In the sort of play I tend to prefer (for character focused play) players simply play strong protagonists who goes after the things they want and it is the GM who frames them into conflicts.

That being said those games when played as written still have a very strong sense of player agency over the fiction. I tend to not enjoy how they get there, but that is another matter entirely.

My own preference is a tendency towards games that have a great deal of correspondence with the fiction, where the rules of the game almost underwrite the mentality of the characters. Games like Dogs in the Vineyard, Sorcerer, Apocalypse World, Masks, and Monsterhearts. Blades in the Dark pretty much represents the edge of what I like. I find that stress and flashbacks have just another fictional correspondence to help us portray these dangerous rogues who live life on a knife's edge. The Forged in the Dark games that go further like Band of Blades are not to my taste.

I tend to prefer the way the games I like achieve player agency over the fiction - transparent GM ethos, player facing mechanics that constrain both players and GMs, and focus on making play a more fluid conversation. The GM is still given a great deal of latitude, greater in some areas than a game like modern D&D, but the MC does not like run the game. They are a player that takes on a slightly different role.