A Question Of Agency?

[Campbell]

Right. And perhaps it is because for a long time I've played tabletop RPGs in an environment where most of the participants are also LARPers, that the idea that the game is 'about' the stuff it has most rules for seems utterly bonkers to me. Like sure, if the game has rules for something, then that something can probably reasonably be expected to be featured in some extent, because, otherwise, why bother having those rules? But I just strongly feel that there is a lot of stuff that only doesn't need a lot of rules to handle, but is actively negatively affected by mechanising it. Your mileage will most definitely vary.

I also play with a fair number of LARPers, really enjoy Nordic LARPs, Buffer LARPs, and even a fair number of Parlor LARPs. My Scion group are all really invested in the LARP scene. I have also seen this group adjust player behavior to system incentives in different games. Our six month mecha game actually went through 3 systems before it found its footing in a custom design.

I think one massive difference between us is the degree to which you look at roleplaying games as like games. To me the fun of games is that we subordinate our personal interests and take on the interests of the game. This gives us a sense of shared purpose and we get to experience things we would not get to otherwise. For me this is particularly true of roleplaying games in particular where we take on the roles of characters with vastly different psychological experiences. Teen Monsters, Supernaturally Empowered Demigods Driven By Powerful Emotions, samurai trained from birth to hold their emotions in despite deep longing, scoundrels living on the edge of society.

I love the theater, but I also have a deep love of games in general. Board Games. Social Deception Games. Card Games. Video Games. I love learning new games, experiencing new things, and getting the chance to get better at them. I also tend to be extremely sensitive to the behavior incentivized by a particular game. Trying to focus on my character's concerns when there is adventure in front of us in D&D cuts against my gamesmanship. Everyone has different levels of sensitivity here of course.

My suspicion is that your group has a very strong social reward structure that overcomes most of the incentivized behaviors of the game. I have played in a number of groups with a similar dynamic. My last Vampire group was like that. In my experience is still nothing like having everything align with a group that really buys into the purpose of the game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

For me to provide those explanations would take another thread as long as this one, as the game I run and play is an almost-completely-homebrew kitbash that started with the 1e chassis and has since had 40+ years of refinements, tweaks, experiments, deletions, additions, and general screwery to get to where it is today*.

* - where it is today is somewhat open to debate: last reports put it somewhere near Blandford Forum, Dorset; but it might have moved since then.

Right, this is kind of what I mean. Obviously no one here will understand your game without you explaining how it works. So in these discussions, the onus is on you to do that, if you want people to understand.

So in a thread like this, it’d really help if you explain why you hold the opinions you do based on your actual game. Like, with examples that help support the ideas. Something along the lines of “well we felt initiative was too time consuming as presented, so we did x”.

You don’t need to post it all at once. Just when it comes up, offer examples.

 

[Hriston]

The causal relationship is completely differnt.

Just to butt in here, the causal relationship is identical in both cases: action declaration -> mechanical resolution -> change in the fiction.

 

[pemerton]

The claim was that 5e works against the character's being moored, it does not. If you want a camping where the characters have a lot of established connection in the setting and will create more, you can do that just fine. This is again wanting to have rules for stuff that needs no rules.

I'm sure @Campbell can clarify himself, and much more succinctly, but I think it's the idea that the absence of these things from the game make it clear that they are not essential. They don't need to be present. If something doesn't need to be present, how important can you really claim that it to be?

Yes, you can add these elements. I described my 5E game where we did exactly that. But the system does NOTHING to support this. It works only because my players and I make it work. I would also say that some of the rules get in the way.

I would add: in 5e, what is the chance that my character encounters, or is able to meet, someone s/he knows? What is the likelihood that such a person is friendly?

I've described, upthread, Thurgon's encounter with Rufus in Burning Wheel. How could this happen in 5e other than via sheer GM narration?

 

[pemerton]

Up to now I'm not sure how clearly (or if at all) you noted that the existence of the former comrades was already pre-established. Given that, that he meets one now in a place where one might reasonably be found makes perfect sense, no matter what mechanics were used to arrive at that narration.

I've repeatedly posted that Thurgon is a member of a holy order, the Last Knight of the Iron Tower, who is travelling through land familiar to him and (in my most recent session) returning to his ancestral estate. This implies that he has former comrades whom he might meet.

Under what conditions would you consider that a paladin would not have former comrades?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I would add: in 5e, what is the chance that my character encounters, or is able to meet, someone s/he knows? What is the likelihood that such a person is friendly?

I've described, upthread, Thurgon's encounter with Rufus in Burning Wheel. How could this happen in 5e other than via sheer GM narration?

I think that, as written, perhaps if it had something to do with the PC’s chosen background. Moat backgrounds come with a benefit of some kind. For example, the Folk Hero can expect reasonable shelter to be provided to him and his companions by common folk. Other backgrounds have similar perks.

The PC’s chosen Bond may be another area this could come up. Let’s say that the PC is the member of a knightly order, and his Bond is to uphold the ideals of the order of the lion or some such. When he meets members of that order, I’d expect that to be considered.

All that said, it’s still highly subject to the GM’s approval.

5E Overall requires cooperation between the GM and players for any of this stuff to matter. There are no rules in the game that give a player the ability to declare that kind of stuff.

 

[pemerton]

Yep. Additionally "One doesn't go, we are in some random location trying to cross this river so I am going to look for one of my friends because doing so will let me have a chance encounter here and get some help".

The result of the "looking for your friends" action in the fiction just doesn't follow as something that would occur in the fiction due to your character "looking for your friends".

Why is the location random? In a GM-driven game it might be; in a player-driven game probably not - there's probably a reason for being there.

I've already posted, multiple times, that in my BW game the characters were not in "some random location".

 

[pemerton]

The causal relationship is completely differnt.

No it's not - as @Hriston has explained already.

In the fiction there is a different causal relationship between tower => my memory of it and my muscular motion with my sword => death of Orc. But I'm not talking about imagined causal processes; I'm talking about the play of a RPG. I was responding to a post by @FrogReaver which referred to "Mechanics that give players power of the situation or setting outside their character". Combat mechanics give players power over situation or setting outside their characters - eg the power to have the situation or setting include dead Orcs.

In both the fight case and the memory case, the process is exactly as @Hriston has said, which is also exactly as I have posted upthread: there is an established fictional context, then an action declaration, then resolution of that, which results in new/changed fiction.

 

[FrogReaver]

Just to butt in here, the causal relationship is identical in both cases: action declaration -> mechanical resolution -> change in the fiction.

I think it would help to show it this way:
1. My level 1 fighter swings my mundane sword at the Orc
2. Mechanical Resolution "successful"
3. A meteor falls from the sky and kills the orc.

If you want to call that a causal relationship of the sword swing causing a meteor to fall feel free. But that's missing the rather important point that swinging swords don't actually cause meteors to fall from the sky (which is why we say there is no causal link).

*Note this is the same mechanical framework present in the "I look for friends" -> mechanical resolution "successful" -> "your friends are here"

 

[pemerton]

I think that, as written, perhaps if it had something to do with the PC’s chosen background. Moat backgrounds come with a benefit of some kind. For example, the Folk Hero can expect reasonable shelter to be provided to him and his companions by common folk. Other backgrounds have similar perks.

The PC’s chosen Bond may be another area this could come up. Let’s say that the PC is the member of a knightly order, and his Bond is to uphold the ideals of the order of the lion or some such. When he meets members of that order, I’d expect that to be considered.

All that said, it’s still highly subject to the GM’s approval.

5E Overall requires cooperation between the GM and players for any of this stuff to matter. There are no rules in the game that give a player the ability to declare that kind of stuff.

Does the background or bond approach allow for the possibility of Rufus being cowed and sullen and ultimately unwilling to help despite attempts to shame and bully him?