Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7496783" data-attributes="member: 42582">To me, that doesn't look like exploiting the rules. Why would a player choose a background that gives abilities they don't want?And how is it "powergaming" to choose proficiency in Perception? What skill choices aren't powergaming?A4 is an interesting idea in the context of a game that emphasises PC equipment load outs and spell load outs as the main suites of player resources. So it was interesting in the context of classic D&D.But there are a lot of approaches to RPGing in which the main action of play is not about managing those sorts of resources, and in which setting up a situation which is all about turning stalactites into makeshift spears is just tedious rather than fun play.Seeing as the thread seems to have moved to a point where posters are expressing their views about what makes for good RPGing, I'll express mine.I think that, while you may be right about the default way to approach RPGing, I think it tends to make for mediocre RPG experiences, and is the source of a lot of the conflict that I seem to read about on these boards between players and their referees.Every decision a player makes about his/her PC - both in backstory, and in play - has implications for the wider gameworld. Eg if a player makes decisions about his/her PC's parentage, that is already determining that reproduction in the gameworld - both biological and social aspects - proceeds in ways similar to  the real world. If a player declares as an action "I look for a secret door" that forces the GM to confront the question of the forms that architecture takes in the gameworld.So if we start from a premise that the GM controls "everything else", we're setting ourselves on a direct course for conflict, railroading, "player entitlement", etc.Similarly, if the GM is never allowed to tell a player how his/her PC feels unless a NPC uses a spell, huge swathes of fiction are precluded. When Frodo feels weary in Morder, that's not because Sauron cast an Emotion spell on him. When Lancelot feels passion for Guinevere, or - in the movie version - when Aragorn feels shame before Arwen about his human heritage - those aren't magical effects.And it's hardly a feature of new-fangled systems that they allow for non-magical emotional consequences to occur to PCs. In Classic Traveller (1977) PCs are subject to morale checks. In the early 90s, when we player Rolemaster, either I as GM or the players for their PCs would call for rolls on the Depression critical table (RMC III) when a PC experienced some sort of trauma like the death of a loved one.As I posted upthread, the heart of RPGing is collectively establishing a shared fiction, with the players contributing by declaring moves for and about their PCs. If everyone agrees with a proposal as to how the fiction changes ("I walk across the room and open the door") then lo-and-behold!, that's now true in the shared fiction. If there is some sort of contention, then the rules of the game tell us how to sort it out. If those rules give unilateral power to the GM, then it's not a game that I want to play, but let's be upfront about that and not pretend that the players also have some sacrosacnt sphere of power. But if the rules don't just say "GM fiat", then I can't see any way in which they're going to preserve some sort of "players control PCs, GM controls the world" demarcation.</blockquote>

Verification