Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7571309" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I can happily accept that in certain cases the single right answer isn't ascertainable - there are limits to human epistemic prowess - but there is a <em>single right set of possibilities</em> - either the infantry withstand the charge, or they break - and this is disciplining the referee's decision to set some odds and call for the roll.</p><p></p><p>In the individual-level human behaviour cases, my view is that there is no single right set of possibilities, because where individual-level human behaviour is concerned that already admits indefinitely many possibilities. That's not to say <em>anything goes</em> - I think that most tables would accept that if Tanis meets Kitiara on the field of battle she's not going to rush up and offer him a rose - but the range of possibilities is very great - certainly more than two - and so there is no objective answer in that respect before we even get to the point of setting the odds.</p><p></p><p>I think this is what, in the history of RPG development, has driven (as a trend, not uniformally) <em>character/theme-driven RPGing</em> towards "say 'yes' or roll the dice", or similar sorts of approaches. (Ie I don't think this is just a coincidental convergence.) I'll try and explain why.</p><p></p><p>In the Waterloo example, there's also a sense in which there are indefinitely many possibilities - it's always <em>possible</em> that, right at that moment, an earthquake occurs and swallows up the infantry line, or a great wave sweeps them away (Belgium is a flat country, though Waterloo is a fair way inland, but hopefully you get my point), or whatever. But those possibilities are sufficiently remote and non-salient that the referee doesn't need to bother with them. The only salient possibilities are objectively ascertainable - holding or breaking.</p><p></p><p>In the Tanis-and-Kitiara example, how do we decide what the salient possibilities are, given the indefinite range of possible and plausible responses in human interaction? One way is <em>GM chooses</em>, which is the traditional way of running the DL modules. The other obvious way is that each participant in the play situation - player and GM - gets to nominate a salient possibility. The player puts forward his/hers, the GM puts forward his/hers. Then, when the dice are rolled, if the player wins his/her choice comes good; if the player loses the GM's choice comes good.</p><p></p><p>And this can be generalised to any situation in the game in which the inherent possibilities are multiple, but in which the player and GM can each fasten on one as the one s/he wants to put forward. It can handle not only <em>Where can we find some sect members</em>, where the player puts forward "In the teahouse" as their salient possibility, but even purely binary matters like <em>Is there a secret door here?</em> It seems that "yes" and "no" are the only possible options in this latter case, but if both are plausible then this can be resolved by the player opting for one, the GM the other, and making a check to see which is to be the case.</p><p></p><p>So I think it is the individual-level human-behaviour stuff - which is at the heart of character-driven play - that creates the impetus for "say 'yes' or roll the dice", but the method turns out to be easily generalised to all parts of the game, including doing "exploration" using the same dice-based resolution approach as we use for other elements of play, rather than relying on maps and notes as per the wargaming tradition. (In a Waterloo free kriegsspiel, rather than "Is there a secret door" one player might ask "Are their clouds"? I can imagine the referee rolling dice to determine the answer. But I think in free kriegsspiel that wouldn't be the default approach to establishing these "backstory" elements.)</p><p></p><p>And once exploration is done in that way, it too gets swallowed up into the <em>theme</em> stuff - if no one cares about secret doors than dice will never be rolled to determine whether or not there are any, but maybe the presence of curtains in rooms becomes a hot issue for that table for whatever reason. (Why do D&D maps and keys obsess over room height but not ceiling colour? I guess because we have a wall-climbing thief class, and rules for monster size and weapon length and the like, but no <em>colour mage</em> or <em>interior decorator</em> class. Given that we do have a druid class, why do D&D maps and keys <em>not</em> obsess over what plant life and (non-giant) vermin live in the dungeon? I guess because the druid is something of an ad hoc add on to the core dungeoneering game!)</p><p></p><p>In this way I think the move away from <em>GM chooses</em> for certain sorts of character-driven stuff leads to a more general move away from a wargame-type way of establishing setting and backstory to a much more "narrative"/"thematic" way of doing so. There's an inner logic to it, though obviously not every game has to travel all the way along the logical arrow.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7571309, member: 42582"] I can happily accept that in certain cases the single right answer isn't ascertainable - there are limits to human epistemic prowess - but there is a [I]single right set of possibilities[/I] - either the infantry withstand the charge, or they break - and this is disciplining the referee's decision to set some odds and call for the roll. In the individual-level human behaviour cases, my view is that there is no single right set of possibilities, because where individual-level human behaviour is concerned that already admits indefinitely many possibilities. That's not to say [I]anything goes[/I] - I think that most tables would accept that if Tanis meets Kitiara on the field of battle she's not going to rush up and offer him a rose - but the range of possibilities is very great - certainly more than two - and so there is no objective answer in that respect before we even get to the point of setting the odds. I think this is what, in the history of RPG development, has driven (as a trend, not uniformally) [I]character/theme-driven RPGing[/I] towards "say 'yes' or roll the dice", or similar sorts of approaches. (Ie I don't think this is just a coincidental convergence.) I'll try and explain why. In the Waterloo example, there's also a sense in which there are indefinitely many possibilities - it's always [I]possible[/I] that, right at that moment, an earthquake occurs and swallows up the infantry line, or a great wave sweeps them away (Belgium is a flat country, though Waterloo is a fair way inland, but hopefully you get my point), or whatever. But those possibilities are sufficiently remote and non-salient that the referee doesn't need to bother with them. The only salient possibilities are objectively ascertainable - holding or breaking. In the Tanis-and-Kitiara example, how do we decide what the salient possibilities are, given the indefinite range of possible and plausible responses in human interaction? One way is [I]GM chooses[/I], which is the traditional way of running the DL modules. The other obvious way is that each participant in the play situation - player and GM - gets to nominate a salient possibility. The player puts forward his/hers, the GM puts forward his/hers. Then, when the dice are rolled, if the player wins his/her choice comes good; if the player loses the GM's choice comes good. And this can be generalised to any situation in the game in which the inherent possibilities are multiple, but in which the player and GM can each fasten on one as the one s/he wants to put forward. It can handle not only [I]Where can we find some sect members[/I], where the player puts forward "In the teahouse" as their salient possibility, but even purely binary matters like [I]Is there a secret door here?[/I] It seems that "yes" and "no" are the only possible options in this latter case, but if both are plausible then this can be resolved by the player opting for one, the GM the other, and making a check to see which is to be the case. So I think it is the individual-level human-behaviour stuff - which is at the heart of character-driven play - that creates the impetus for "say 'yes' or roll the dice", but the method turns out to be easily generalised to all parts of the game, including doing "exploration" using the same dice-based resolution approach as we use for other elements of play, rather than relying on maps and notes as per the wargaming tradition. (In a Waterloo free kriegsspiel, rather than "Is there a secret door" one player might ask "Are their clouds"? I can imagine the referee rolling dice to determine the answer. But I think in free kriegsspiel that wouldn't be the default approach to establishing these "backstory" elements.) And once exploration is done in that way, it too gets swallowed up into the [I]theme[/I] stuff - if no one cares about secret doors than dice will never be rolled to determine whether or not there are any, but maybe the presence of curtains in rooms becomes a hot issue for that table for whatever reason. (Why do D&D maps and keys obsess over room height but not ceiling colour? I guess because we have a wall-climbing thief class, and rules for monster size and weapon length and the like, but no [I]colour mage[/I] or [I]interior decorator[/I] class. Given that we do have a druid class, why do D&D maps and keys [I]not[/I] obsess over what plant life and (non-giant) vermin live in the dungeon? I guess because the druid is something of an ad hoc add on to the core dungeoneering game!) In this way I think the move away from [I]GM chooses[/I] for certain sorts of character-driven stuff leads to a more general move away from a wargame-type way of establishing setting and backstory to a much more "narrative"/"thematic" way of doing so. There's an inner logic to it, though obviously not every game has to travel all the way along the logical arrow. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
Top