Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7065761" data-attributes="member: 42582">Agreed. This is why I like systems that allow for mechanical "closure" in actions other than fighting.At the moment, I'm GMing two 4e games, a MHRP game, a Cortex+ Fantasy hack game, and a BW game. One thing all these systems have in common is robust non-combat resolution (skill challenges; mental and emotional stress, complications; Duel of Wits, "let it ride").Unsurprisingly (I would say) the 4e games are highest in the fisticuffs, then MHRP. But even the 4e games have crucial moments of non-combat resolution.This seems to get to the core of the matter.If the PCs are nothing more than "id" - survive, kill, grow in power - then the game will reflect that. But there's no good reason why that should be so.Most RPGers read stories, watch movies, etc where the protagonists are not just "ids" - so they're familiar with the concept.I think the issues arise from (i) a certain way of presenting the mechanics/structure of the game, and (ii) a certain way of handling the fiction of the game in play.(i) is partly about how rules are presented, partly about how the GM frames things. For instance, RPG books often talk about PCs "getting stronger", but frequently this completely elides an in-fiction state of affairs (the PC, like Conan, progresses from street-thief to king) and a mechanical state of affairs (the numbers on the PC sheet get bigger). But the connection between these two ways of "getting stronger" is purely contingent. For instance, if the GM steps up the numbers on all the monters, but nothing else changes in the fiction - the PCs are still raiding dungeons looking for MacGuffins for strangers that approached them in a tavern - then in the fiction nothing has really changed at all. The flavour text is not really doing any more work than it does on M:tG cards.Once the idea of "getting stronger" is given meaning in the fiction, then there is no reason why "getting stronger" - or, more generally, increasing my PC's actual and potential impact on the fiction - can't take on dimensions that include (say) plots, alliances, and caring what others, including NPCs, think of the PC. I've personally seen this emerge in play, among hardened wargame types, without the need to do anything other than make the fiction, and the capacity of the players to impact the fiction via their PCs, clear.I think elements of classic D&D at least point to this (eg "Lords" who rule castles, etc) and I think 4e is getting at it pretty clearly in the description (in both PHB and DMG) of "tiers of play" - though the published modules don't really follow through.An obstacle to resolving (i), though, can arise via (ii) - which is about how the GM frames and adjudicates the fiction. If the framing is completely indifferent to the way the players play their PCs - or if the only way the player can actually impact the fiction is eg by trying to pickpocket the king - because the GM is so busy "curating" it to ensure that it unfolds precisely as s/he has envisaged it, then no wonder players retreat to the "id" in their engagement of the gameworld. The GM has removed scope for anything else.The "pickpocket the king" example is, I think, especially telling. It's not as if RPG players are inherently juvenile. (Some are, but I don't think it's universal.) At least on the fantasy side of things, they seem nearly all to revere LotR, and Gandalf doesn't try and pick Theoden's pocket. Rather, he asks him for - and receives - a gift (of a horse). There is an element of trickery in Gandalf getting Shadowfax as his horse, but it does not have the juvenile, "game disrupting" tone of trying to pick the king's pocket.If the framing and adjudication of the fiction makes it clear that the players can impact it, including eg by actually befriending NPCs, or successfully dealing with them, receiving gifts from them, etc - and this is all built into action resolution (eg one can easily imagine framing Gandalf, and then the whole Fellowship's, dealings with Theoden as a skill challenge or a Duel of Wits) - then I think that many players will step outside the limits of the "id".Can you elaborate?EDIT: [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION] - I lost my quote tags in this post, so just letting you know I replied (at excessive length).</blockquote>

Verification