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
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: 7584791" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>One source of frustration in playing a character in a RPG can be when player priorites and character priorities very obviously come inrto conflict. I'm thinking of the sort of situation in which the player has to choose to be faithful to the PC, but get hosed in the game play; or can make a choice that will avoid being hosed, but seems like a distortion of the character.</p><p></p><p>Iin my own experience of long-term group play using relatively traditional systems, part of the required player skill-set is anticipating and managing these possible conflicts. One example I have in mind, which I think I already mentioned upthread, has to do with intraparty conflict: a player who declares hostile actions against another PC, but who ameliorates the degree of hostility compared to what s/he might do against a NPC, is trying to remain true to the character (along the line of actor stance) but has "massaged" the character's motivations/deciions by having regard to the practical demands of group play at the table (author stance).</p><p></p><p>Another example which is frequently mentioned by posters on these boards is building a PC who has a reason/motivation to go "adventuring" with the other PCs. This reduces the likelihood that the plaeyr will find him-/herself torn between chosing something that would make sense for the character, and choosing something that works for the game at the table.</p><p></p><p>The troll example - in which the player knows what is required, but has to pretend that the player does not - is an instance (in my view) of the frustration I mentioned very much coming to the surface. A quite different way to ameliorate the frustration from the one mentioned by [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] (that is, of coming up with a clever way of bringing the non-hosing action declaration back into consistency with the PC's mental states) is to use ad hoc adjduciation by the GM, or systematic system changes, to render the staeks of the encounter less of a hosing for the player (eg think about how in The Empire Strikes Back the "troll" captures Luke rather than killing him). I woudn't expect a game in which [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]'s approach counts as "cheating", by giving the player an "unfair advantage" in the encounter, to consider this alternative pathway. But it's one that eg RQ suggests, by having combat outcomes that are less binary than D&D's, and by making capture and ransom a more significant part of the game.</p><p></p><p>Another frequent oddity (and perhaps more oddity than frustration) of the sort I'm talking about is the contrast between the shock/fear that many characters might be expected to feel when confronted by horrible monsters, and the lack of such feelings at the table as the players plan how their PCs will tackle this most recent encounter. I like how 4e handles this for (at least some) monsters, like the Deathlock Wight which has a "Horrific Visgae" that inflicts psychic damage and causes the characters to recoil in horror; or the Tyrant Fang Drake (? 4e's version of a T-Rex), which has a roar that stuns those who hear it, freezing them with terror. Prince Valiant and Cortex+ Heroic use similar devices within their own mechanical frameworks. In all these cases, the upshot is that the <em>player</em> doesn't need to deliberately choose the "in character' but "losing rather than winning" option of RPing his/her PC's fear - the game mechanics take care of it instead.</p><p></p><p>As a player, my ideal state is one of "inhabitation" - that is, the emtions and choice situation I experience as a player closely correspond to those confronting my character. BW produces a fair bit of this eg my character has an instinct to interpose himself between innocents and danger, and so do I (because if I act on my instnct to the detriment of my character I earn a fate point); blind declaration in combat means that I experience the same "fog of war" as my PC; etc.</p><p></p><p>As a GM, one of the best "inhabiation"-inducing mechanics I've seen in play is the 4e Chained Cambion's psychic chains ability, which (in the fiction) binds two characters with the same torment and frustration that the cambion itself experiences, and at the table binds two players together in a way that (given the dyamic nature of the typical 4e combat) produces increasing frustration and recrimination (eg because even when one player saves against the efffect, s/he is still subject to it until tthe other player also saves).</p><p></p><p>That one has always stood out for me becauase of the way in produced "inhabitation" in respect of intra-party adversity and hostility rather than the more straightforward cases such as cooperation, gratitude and the like.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7584791, member: 42582"] One source of frustration in playing a character in a RPG can be when player priorites and character priorities very obviously come inrto conflict. I'm thinking of the sort of situation in which the player has to choose to be faithful to the PC, but get hosed in the game play; or can make a choice that will avoid being hosed, but seems like a distortion of the character. Iin my own experience of long-term group play using relatively traditional systems, part of the required player skill-set is anticipating and managing these possible conflicts. One example I have in mind, which I think I already mentioned upthread, has to do with intraparty conflict: a player who declares hostile actions against another PC, but who ameliorates the degree of hostility compared to what s/he might do against a NPC, is trying to remain true to the character (along the line of actor stance) but has "massaged" the character's motivations/deciions by having regard to the practical demands of group play at the table (author stance). Another example which is frequently mentioned by posters on these boards is building a PC who has a reason/motivation to go "adventuring" with the other PCs. This reduces the likelihood that the plaeyr will find him-/herself torn between chosing something that would make sense for the character, and choosing something that works for the game at the table. The troll example - in which the player knows what is required, but has to pretend that the player does not - is an instance (in my view) of the frustration I mentioned very much coming to the surface. A quite different way to ameliorate the frustration from the one mentioned by [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] (that is, of coming up with a clever way of bringing the non-hosing action declaration back into consistency with the PC's mental states) is to use ad hoc adjduciation by the GM, or systematic system changes, to render the staeks of the encounter less of a hosing for the player (eg think about how in The Empire Strikes Back the "troll" captures Luke rather than killing him). I woudn't expect a game in which [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION]'s approach counts as "cheating", by giving the player an "unfair advantage" in the encounter, to consider this alternative pathway. But it's one that eg RQ suggests, by having combat outcomes that are less binary than D&D's, and by making capture and ransom a more significant part of the game. Another frequent oddity (and perhaps more oddity than frustration) of the sort I'm talking about is the contrast between the shock/fear that many characters might be expected to feel when confronted by horrible monsters, and the lack of such feelings at the table as the players plan how their PCs will tackle this most recent encounter. I like how 4e handles this for (at least some) monsters, like the Deathlock Wight which has a "Horrific Visgae" that inflicts psychic damage and causes the characters to recoil in horror; or the Tyrant Fang Drake (? 4e's version of a T-Rex), which has a roar that stuns those who hear it, freezing them with terror. Prince Valiant and Cortex+ Heroic use similar devices within their own mechanical frameworks. In all these cases, the upshot is that the [i]player[/i] doesn't need to deliberately choose the "in character' but "losing rather than winning" option of RPing his/her PC's fear - the game mechanics take care of it instead. As a player, my ideal state is one of "inhabitation" - that is, the emtions and choice situation I experience as a player closely correspond to those confronting my character. BW produces a fair bit of this eg my character has an instinct to interpose himself between innocents and danger, and so do I (because if I act on my instnct to the detriment of my character I earn a fate point); blind declaration in combat means that I experience the same "fog of war" as my PC; etc. As a GM, one of the best "inhabiation"-inducing mechanics I've seen in play is the 4e Chained Cambion's psychic chains ability, which (in the fiction) binds two characters with the same torment and frustration that the cambion itself experiences, and at the table binds two players together in a way that (given the dyamic nature of the typical 4e combat) produces increasing frustration and recrimination (eg because even when one player saves against the efffect, s/he is still subject to it until tthe other player also saves). That one has always stood out for me becauase of the way in produced "inhabitation" in respect of intra-party adversity and hostility rather than the more straightforward cases such as cooperation, gratitude and the like. [/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