Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 6793739" data-attributes="member: 6698278">Well it's clear I'm not good at describing these styles.&nbsp;&nbsp; I definitely am not denigrating either approach.&nbsp; I obviously like one style more but that is something I recognize as taste.&nbsp;&nbsp; When I say the DM and players team at the metagame level, I mean that interaction occurs outside of what the character knows.&nbsp;&nbsp; For example, in Numenera, the GM can offer an XP in exchange for having something happen to the PC.&nbsp; The PC can accept the XP and if he does then the thing happens.&nbsp; It's usually bad in some way but it furthers the storyline.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is the GM and the Player having a transaction at a level outside the characters mind.&nbsp;&nbsp; A popular example is falling through a trap door.&nbsp;&nbsp; No character is going to want to fall unexpectedly through a trap door.&nbsp; No sane character anyway.&nbsp; The player though is willing to accept an XP in exchange for letting that happen.&nbsp;&nbsp; XP though is not something real in game.&nbsp; Characters don't know about XP.&nbsp;&nbsp; A PC will later use an XP to make some roll more favorable based on something about that PC.&nbsp;&nbsp; Kind of like an aspect in Fate.&nbsp; This again is bending the reality of the game.&nbsp; The player is intruding where his character has no knowledge.&nbsp;&nbsp; XP, Fate Points, etc.. are not real things IN GAME.Now.&nbsp; I don't like that style of play for myself.&nbsp; There is an objective chance that something can happen based upon situation and established probabilities in my games.&nbsp;&nbsp; Players can't influence anything except through their character.&nbsp; If they get some bonus for background knowledge they get it everytime the given situation IN GAME exists. I hope that clears up what I mean by Player control versus Character control.&nbsp;&nbsp; I like the latter.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is nothing wrong with the former.&nbsp; It is a really different sort of game.&nbsp;&nbsp; Obviously you can use Player Control to any degree you like from mildly to all the time.Failing forward that was instituted in advance using well defined charts would likely become the physics of the world.&nbsp; I'd be okay with a critical failure role forcing a role on another table.&nbsp; Any of those sorts of things can be made to work without leaving behind the character focused style.&nbsp; You just have to handle it right.&nbsp;&nbsp; I do though think that Fail Forward was promoted originally as a story driven style element.&nbsp;&nbsp; Many at WOTC seem to lack any understanding about how different these styles are and why people prefer one or the other.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 6793739, member: 6698278"] Well it's clear I'm not good at describing these styles. I definitely am not denigrating either approach. I obviously like one style more but that is something I recognize as taste. When I say the DM and players team at the metagame level, I mean that interaction occurs outside of what the character knows. For example, in Numenera, the GM can offer an XP in exchange for having something happen to the PC. The PC can accept the XP and if he does then the thing happens. It's usually bad in some way but it furthers the storyline. This is the GM and the Player having a transaction at a level outside the characters mind. A popular example is falling through a trap door. No character is going to want to fall unexpectedly through a trap door. No sane character anyway. The player though is willing to accept an XP in exchange for letting that happen. XP though is not something real in game. Characters don't know about XP. A PC will later use an XP to make some roll more favorable based on something about that PC. Kind of like an aspect in Fate. This again is bending the reality of the game. The player is intruding where his character has no knowledge. XP, Fate Points, etc.. are not real things IN GAME. Now. I don't like that style of play for myself. There is an objective chance that something can happen based upon situation and established probabilities in my games. Players can't influence anything except through their character. If they get some bonus for background knowledge they get it everytime the given situation IN GAME exists. I hope that clears up what I mean by Player control versus Character control. I like the latter. There is nothing wrong with the former. It is a really different sort of game. Obviously you can use Player Control to any degree you like from mildly to all the time. Failing forward that was instituted in advance using well defined charts would likely become the physics of the world. I'd be okay with a critical failure role forcing a role on another table. Any of those sorts of things can be made to work without leaving behind the character focused style. You just have to handle it right. I do though think that Fail Forward was promoted originally as a story driven style element. Many at WOTC seem to lack any understanding about how different these styles are and why people prefer one or the other. [/QUOTE]

Verification