Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Alternate thought - rule of cool is bad for gaming
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: 9399947" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>On <em>player vs character knowledge</em>:</p><p></p><p>From Robin Laws (p of my 20th anniversary edition of Over the Edge):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">When viewing role-playing as an art form, rather than a game, it becomes less important to keep from the players things their characters wouldn't know. When characters separate you can "cut" back and forth between scenes involving different characters, making each PC the focus of his own individual sub-plot. This technique has several benefits. First, it allows players to develop characters toward their goals without having to subsume them to the demands of the "party" as a whole. Secondly, it quickens the pace, allowing players think while their characters are "off-screen", cutting down on dead time in which players thrash over decisions. When a character reaches an impasse, or an important climax, the GM can then "cut" to another character, giving the first player a chance to mentally regroup. Finally, the device is entertaining for players out of the spotlight, allowing them to sit back and enjoy the adventures of others' characters.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The price of this is allowing players access to information known to PCs other than their own. But it's simple enough to rule out of play any actions they attempt based on forbidden knowledge. This doesn't mean there will be a shortage of mystery. Any OTE GM will still have secrets to spare. In fact, by allowing the number of sub-plots to increase, the GM is introducing even more questions the players will look forward to seeing answered.</p><p></p><p>Laws's "rather than a game" speaks directly to [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER]'s post upthread. Laws is envisaging players who are playing for "the story" rather than in order to win.</p><p></p><p>He is also not talking about rules information like trolls' vulnerability to fire, which is part of the suite of GM-vs-player tricks and puzzles that make up a big part of "classic"/"old school" D&D play. He is talking about information and secrets that are part of the emerging fiction that makes up "the story".</p><p></p><p>From the Maelstrom Storytelling supplement Dacartha Prime (pp 92, 121):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">The character is the player's tool in the story, and the player contributes to the story using that tool. The trick is to make interesting choices that add flavor and interest to the game while remaining true to the role. Just doing what makes sense for the character is only half of it. Find new ways to approach dilemmas, and make choices that other players can "play off of". Information that the player has, but that their character does not, should never be used to benefit the character - however, that information can be used to add flavor and color to the story.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Example: Pendleton has a lot of money, all safely kept in a safe deposit box. His friend Lilith wound up with the key by accident, but doesn't know where it came from. Pendleton looks frantically for the key, describing it to his friend as he searches. "A little silver key? Like this one?" Lilith asks, showing him the key. "Yes. A silver key. Very much like that one." he answers, continuing to search. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">One of the most obvious but most abused rules of a role-playing game involves "out-of-character" information (abbreviated "ooc" and "ic" for "in-character). This is information that the player knows but their character does NOT know. For instance, the player may know that their character is in danger, but if the character doesn't know that then the player shouldn't take precautions that don't make sense for their character. Essentially, using "ooc" information to help the character is cheating. There are creative ways to use "ooc" information that make the game enjoyable (see [the above example]) but generally the players need to keep "ooc" information separate from "ic" information.</p><p></p><p>This advice/instruction sets up a completely different approach from a game/win-oriented approach of the sort associated with classic/OS play. In the latter case, the player is expected to build up "ooc" information over the course of play, and to use it to help win against the dungeon. (Like when playing a Fighting Fantasy Gamebook.) The Maelstrom advice, like Robin Laws's advice, is oriented towards play where the player is trying to establish and express their character in the fiction. It works best in systems in which <em>the character</em> losing or missing out on some opportunity, or suffering some setback, doesn't mean that <em>the player</em> is set back in their ability to play the game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9399947, member: 42582"] On [I]player vs character knowledge[/I]: From Robin Laws (p of my 20th anniversary edition of Over the Edge): [indent]When viewing role-playing as an art form, rather than a game, it becomes less important to keep from the players things their characters wouldn't know. When characters separate you can "cut" back and forth between scenes involving different characters, making each PC the focus of his own individual sub-plot. This technique has several benefits. First, it allows players to develop characters toward their goals without having to subsume them to the demands of the "party" as a whole. Secondly, it quickens the pace, allowing players think while their characters are "off-screen", cutting down on dead time in which players thrash over decisions. When a character reaches an impasse, or an important climax, the GM can then "cut" to another character, giving the first player a chance to mentally regroup. Finally, the device is entertaining for players out of the spotlight, allowing them to sit back and enjoy the adventures of others' characters. The price of this is allowing players access to information known to PCs other than their own. But it's simple enough to rule out of play any actions they attempt based on forbidden knowledge. This doesn't mean there will be a shortage of mystery. Any OTE GM will still have secrets to spare. In fact, by allowing the number of sub-plots to increase, the GM is introducing even more questions the players will look forward to seeing answered.[/indent] Laws's "rather than a game" speaks directly to [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER]'s post upthread. Laws is envisaging players who are playing for "the story" rather than in order to win. He is also not talking about rules information like trolls' vulnerability to fire, which is part of the suite of GM-vs-player tricks and puzzles that make up a big part of "classic"/"old school" D&D play. He is talking about information and secrets that are part of the emerging fiction that makes up "the story". From the Maelstrom Storytelling supplement Dacartha Prime (pp 92, 121): [indent]The character is the player's tool in the story, and the player contributes to the story using that tool. The trick is to make interesting choices that add flavor and interest to the game while remaining true to the role. Just doing what makes sense for the character is only half of it. Find new ways to approach dilemmas, and make choices that other players can "play off of". Information that the player has, but that their character does not, should never be used to benefit the character - however, that information can be used to add flavor and color to the story. Example: Pendleton has a lot of money, all safely kept in a safe deposit box. His friend Lilith wound up with the key by accident, but doesn't know where it came from. Pendleton looks frantically for the key, describing it to his friend as he searches. "A little silver key? Like this one?" Lilith asks, showing him the key. "Yes. A silver key. Very much like that one." he answers, continuing to search. . . . One of the most obvious but most abused rules of a role-playing game involves "out-of-character" information (abbreviated "ooc" and "ic" for "in-character). This is information that the player knows but their character does NOT know. For instance, the player may know that their character is in danger, but if the character doesn't know that then the player shouldn't take precautions that don't make sense for their character. Essentially, using "ooc" information to help the character is cheating. There are creative ways to use "ooc" information that make the game enjoyable (see [the above example]) but generally the players need to keep "ooc" information separate from "ic" information.[/indent] This advice/instruction sets up a completely different approach from a game/win-oriented approach of the sort associated with classic/OS play. In the latter case, the player is expected to build up "ooc" information over the course of play, and to use it to help win against the dungeon. (Like when playing a Fighting Fantasy Gamebook.) The Maelstrom advice, like Robin Laws's advice, is oriented towards play where the player is trying to establish and express their character in the fiction. It works best in systems in which [I]the character[/I] losing or missing out on some opportunity, or suffering some setback, doesn't mean that [I]the player[/I] is set back in their ability to play the game. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Alternate thought - rule of cool is bad for gaming
Top