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
Clouds, cubes, and "hitting"
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="innerdude" data-source="post: 6993565" data-attributes="member: 85870"><p>Ah, okay ---- this getting closer to the heart of what I'm trying to get at. And you're right, the "arrow distribution" or state transference, as I labeled it, gives you no indication as to what the "cubes" side is doing. </p><p></p><p>The basic process of state transference (from cube to cloud, cloud to cube, etc.) is the same across RPG systems; what ISN'T the same is A) what's happening inside the "cubes," B) how much state change can take place from any given "arrow," and C) where the locus for state change originates.</p><p></p><p>The contrast between your two examples is fairly straightforward---in the case of attacking the goblin, the resulting state change in the fiction is a direct result of something C) the character actually <em>does</em>, has B) minimal repercussions outside the immediate scene, and is A) tightly bounded in the rules.</p><p></p><p>(As a side note, it's easy to see why dungeon crawling was the initial milieu in which D&D was introduced, because it almost completely eliminates B) from the equation. The GM simply didn't need to worry about anything outside the immediate scene.)</p><p></p><p>By contrast, while the Burning Wheel example demonstrates that the "Circles" mechanic is A) still bounded in the rules, the C) resulting fictional state change is in no way correlated to anything the character can actually <em>do</em>, and B) has dramatically broader scale implications for the downline fictional state. </p><p></p><p>Unless the character is a time-traveling chronomancer of exceeding power, he or she can't plausibly create the fictional state resulting from the "Circles" check through any action they themselves can perform. It's a metagame, player-controlled mechanic, and the resulting state change carries an exponentially larger "ripple" effect. Even though the "Circles" rule is just as codified as the combat rules allowing an attack with a sword, it's doing something entirely different.</p><p></p><p>Simply saying, "Oh look, we've introduced a State 2 / cube-to-cloud / left arrow transference" doesn't tell us much in and of itself. The fact that both examples produce a fictional state change is merely endemic to the fact that we're playing an RPG and not something else. (I think we've established pretty well by now that an RPG must assume State 2 / State 3 interactions. If there's no arrows moving between cube and cloud (in either direction), we're not playing an RPG; we're either playing a boardgame or a shared storytelling game.)</p><p></p><p>In this sense, as a game design exercise, the clouds/cubes model might be useful for visualizing the process of RPG play, but I don't know that it's all that useful from a GM adjudication standpoint. Even in games that give some form of explicit control of the fiction to the player (not necessarily to the character), ultimately it comes down to GM judgment call in the end. "How much latitude do I give to any given player proposed action to modify the fiction?"</p><p></p><p>In some cases, the rules specifically bind that latitude; in some cases, it's a pure judgment call; in some cases, it's something in between (some bounded rules extrapolated and interpreted). The question is how to apply that latitude and judgment in such a way that the resulting fictional state pleases as many members of the group as possible.</p><p></p><p>I think there may be another undercurrent here as well, which is, even if there are metagame mechanics that allow players to directly modify the fiction, the general social contract between players and GM should give rise to "appropriate" fictional state changes. When your player rolls his "Circles" check, it's generally assumed the GM doesn't also get to turn the PC into an archangel of infinite power; that falls outside the agreed upon "contract". When your player's character tries to close the Abyss, your player is assuming that you're going to act in good faith to provide a satisfactory conclusion, one that meets the desired levels of dramatic tension, stakes, and investment of the group.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 6993565, member: 85870"] Ah, okay ---- this getting closer to the heart of what I'm trying to get at. And you're right, the "arrow distribution" or state transference, as I labeled it, gives you no indication as to what the "cubes" side is doing. The basic process of state transference (from cube to cloud, cloud to cube, etc.) is the same across RPG systems; what ISN'T the same is A) what's happening inside the "cubes," B) how much state change can take place from any given "arrow," and C) where the locus for state change originates. The contrast between your two examples is fairly straightforward---in the case of attacking the goblin, the resulting state change in the fiction is a direct result of something C) the character actually [I]does[/I], has B) minimal repercussions outside the immediate scene, and is A) tightly bounded in the rules. (As a side note, it's easy to see why dungeon crawling was the initial milieu in which D&D was introduced, because it almost completely eliminates B) from the equation. The GM simply didn't need to worry about anything outside the immediate scene.) By contrast, while the Burning Wheel example demonstrates that the "Circles" mechanic is A) still bounded in the rules, the C) resulting fictional state change is in no way correlated to anything the character can actually [I]do[/I], and B) has dramatically broader scale implications for the downline fictional state. Unless the character is a time-traveling chronomancer of exceeding power, he or she can't plausibly create the fictional state resulting from the "Circles" check through any action they themselves can perform. It's a metagame, player-controlled mechanic, and the resulting state change carries an exponentially larger "ripple" effect. Even though the "Circles" rule is just as codified as the combat rules allowing an attack with a sword, it's doing something entirely different. Simply saying, "Oh look, we've introduced a State 2 / cube-to-cloud / left arrow transference" doesn't tell us much in and of itself. The fact that both examples produce a fictional state change is merely endemic to the fact that we're playing an RPG and not something else. (I think we've established pretty well by now that an RPG must assume State 2 / State 3 interactions. If there's no arrows moving between cube and cloud (in either direction), we're not playing an RPG; we're either playing a boardgame or a shared storytelling game.) In this sense, as a game design exercise, the clouds/cubes model might be useful for visualizing the process of RPG play, but I don't know that it's all that useful from a GM adjudication standpoint. Even in games that give some form of explicit control of the fiction to the player (not necessarily to the character), ultimately it comes down to GM judgment call in the end. "How much latitude do I give to any given player proposed action to modify the fiction?" In some cases, the rules specifically bind that latitude; in some cases, it's a pure judgment call; in some cases, it's something in between (some bounded rules extrapolated and interpreted). The question is how to apply that latitude and judgment in such a way that the resulting fictional state pleases as many members of the group as possible. I think there may be another undercurrent here as well, which is, even if there are metagame mechanics that allow players to directly modify the fiction, the general social contract between players and GM should give rise to "appropriate" fictional state changes. When your player rolls his "Circles" check, it's generally assumed the GM doesn't also get to turn the PC into an archangel of infinite power; that falls outside the agreed upon "contract". When your player's character tries to close the Abyss, your player is assuming that you're going to act in good faith to provide a satisfactory conclusion, one that meets the desired levels of dramatic tension, stakes, and investment of the group. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Clouds, cubes, and "hitting"
Top