Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8085380" data-attributes="member: 42582">[USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] did not refer to mechanical systems like crit tables. He referred to GMing techniques.I have run games that resemble Prince Valiant, or relatively light Burning Wheel, using AD&D (especially Oriental Adventures). Central to Prince Valiant play is that the characters have a clear motivation and orientation underpinned by the genre - they are knights-errant or the associates of knights-errant - and the situations the GM frames are ones that invite knights-errant to get involved - eg a NPC knight is blocking a bridge, a poor but honest peasant is downtrodden, an honourable noble is down on his luck, etc.This is not easy to do in classic AD&D because the PCs don't have motivations built-in, and the pre-fab elements of the game don't make it easy to set up those situations either. But in Oriental Adventures the PCs typically do have motivations built-in - they have families, or are disciples of martial arts masters, etc - and the pre-fab elements are spirits who fit into a spirit hierarchy that correlates in clear ways to the earthly social situation.When I have used this sort of approach in non-OA AD&D it was an all-thief game - and instead of ignoring the fact that thieves are thieves who have a reason and motivation to participate in the life of an urban area, we played that up. Thieve also have non-combat skills (like OA PCs) that permit the resolution of non-combat actions to turn on something other than GM fiat.That said, there is a reason to play Prince Valiant rather than AD&D for this sort of game: AD&D's resolution system, even with those non-weapon systems incorporated, can struggle to produce finality of resolution outside of combat.4e D&D can certainly be used to play a scene-framed game drawing on techniques set out by Ron Edwards (Sorcerer) and Luke Crane (Burning Wheel).  i know because I've done it. 4e is far less gritty and far more gonzo than BW, so the experience that results is rather different - failure rates are much less, and the stakes less personal (both for player and PC). 4e does have the strength, in this context, of providing for finality in resolution out of combat as well as in combat.Rolemaster can be used for very character-focused RPGing - again, I know because I've done it - and it has somewhat robust non-combat resolution that will often permit finality of resolution (provided the scope in in-fiction space and time is not too broad). Where RM is weak compared to a game expressly designed for scene-framed, character-driven play is that its mechanics push towards a focus on minutiae that lingers on beyond the scene (its various resource and healing systems, and its spell duration system, are the most obvious). A strength of the 4e D&D rules in the context of scene-framing techniques is that they almost always push the focus into the scene rather than away from it.Recently I've been playing a fair bit of Classic Traveller. My rough model for how to GM it is Apocalypse World. Compared to AW's soft/hard move approach, Classic Traveller is often a bit more prescriptive in how consequences of failure are to be narrated. And a bit like using AD&D to run a Prince Valiant-like game of thematic fantasy/pseudo-mediaeval vignettes, there are a few points where Classic Traveller's rules are a bit weak - eg onworld exploration. (Though overall I would say it is a much better and more "modern" system than AD&D, although of the same vintage.)This experience with Traveller has helped me appreciate, in a practical way (or at least I think it has) a contrast that [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] has drawn in the past, between scene-framing play and follow-the-fiction play. I already knew, but have a further-developed appreciation, of the distinctness but also interplay of mechanics and techniques.I don't have the play experience with 5e D&D that would let me offer a genuinely informed opinon of what might be done within its mechanical framework. But I would be a bit surprised if it couldn't be used for the sort of game we were playing with Oriental Adventures back in the mid-to-late 80s. The Bond, Ideal and Flaw system seems like it should be able to carry the same sort of weight as class theme and family do in OA AD&D. The 5e skill system isn't quite as effective for taking the focus onto genuinely non-combat activity, but there are probably fairly easy work-arounds (eg blend History, Religion and Arcana into a single Lore skill and create a few new INT or DEX skills for the arts and crafts needed for the game).</blockquote>

Verification