Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Indie Games Are Not More Focused. They Are Differently Focused.
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 8315365" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Because I still don't really grasp the measure of flexibility, I don't know how I would rank these two systems. But it seems to me there's something that B (let's call it Apocalypse World) does that A (let's call it 5e D&D) doesn't: it obviates the need for anyone to decide the broad structure of what happens next. The results of a dice roll tells us whether what happens next thwarts, in part conforms to, or in large part conforms to, what the character was hoping for.</p><p></p><p>Whereas here's my take on A:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">* <strong>There are a couple of skills you could use</strong> and so someone is responsible for adding narrative to the situation to decide which skill is used - depending on further details about likely differences of success based on which skill, and what the cost is of failing as opposed to succeeding, there is the potential here for significant conflict between participants (Burning Wheel has mechanisms that are part of the system that are intended to blunt these sorts of conflicts; I don't know of any in D&D);</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">* <strong>Circumstances and approach could mean that you either just get the info, just don't, or have to make a check</strong> means that someone has to decide how the information is related to or implicit in the circumstances, and how the information so considered relates to the approach adopted, and maybe meta-considerations like pacing etc, in order to call for a check. The contrast with a system which frames the need for a check in terms of is anything that matters to the character at stake is clear.</p><p></p><p>What A seems to offer is a situation in which one participant - the GM - has a very strong role in deciding what happens next, and that the main method for integrating other participants' opinions on that is via negotiation and consensus.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not sure what you mean by <em>force</em>. In my experience, a game can <em>cause</em> a participant to feel things, in something like the same way that watching a film or reading a book or listening to a song can <em>cause </em>a person to feel things.</p><p></p><p>There's no guarantee that everyone will find a given comedy film funny; but there are things that can be done, in the making of the film, to increase the prospects of the intended audience finding it funny.</p><p></p><p>In RPGing, I think there are things that can be done to increase the likelihood that playing the game will cause participants to feel certain things. These aren't limited to asking you to roleplay a certain stipulated mental state. For instance, Burning Wheel has various "fate points" that are accrued by evincing one's character in certain ways (roughly, by playing to or against Beliefs, Traits and Instincts) which can then be expended to improve the chances of success on checks. Some of them are also the buffer against PC death. And the basic principle of framing and check is <em>always frame towards conflict (given PC Beliefs, Traits and Instincts) </em>and <em>say 'yes' if nothing relevant to PC Beliefs, Traits and Instincts is at stake; otherwise call for a check</em>. So engaging with the action resolution system also means making choices about how hard to try, even if that means risking character death, in circumstances where the character's core being and commitments are on the line.</p><p></p><p>This is not the same as being asked to roleplay a mental state. It's nothing like <em>your character is happy - portray that through you narration and action declarations!</em> It's <em>you - as your character - have this choice to make - now how do you choose?</em> I think this is (at least in part) what [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] is pointing to in contrasting <em>playing the fiction </em>with improv storytelling; and also what is prompting his remarks about what social/table constraints are present. In order for Burning Wheel play to be viable, there has to be permission at the table to make those choices without concern about how they will affect "the story" or even the immediate situation conceived from a god's eye perspective.</p><p></p><p>A RPG can grant that permission in part via the social norms it establishes in its rulebook; but also via its action resolution system. For instance, one source of those permissions in Burning Wheel play is that other players can - via their PCs - intervene in the behaviour of a PC, by calling for a Duel of Wits to resolve their PC's attempt to talk down another player's PC. This structure of possibilities means that no one ever has to step outside the perspective of their character and ask, from that god's eye perspective, <em>What would be good for the game?</em></p><p></p><p></p><p>I did read your previous post, after making mine.</p><p></p><p>One (minor) thought I had was that <em>D&D</em> is being used very capaciously, to include HotFW lifepath PC generation, and other non-canonical methods.</p><p></p><p>Another (more major) thought I had related to this bit:</p><p></p><p>From this, it's very unclear how difficulties are being established - is it easy or hard to bribe the guard? it it easy or hard to bring the officer to your side with a kiss? etc - and also how consequences are being established.</p><p></p><p>And a final thought is that, if you're playing Burning Wheel or Prince Valiant but using d20 vs target number rather than dice pool vs target number, isn't this showing that those systems are flexible? That their basic gameplay survives a change of dice mechanic?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8315365, member: 42582"] Because I still don't really grasp the measure of flexibility, I don't know how I would rank these two systems. But it seems to me there's something that B (let's call it Apocalypse World) does that A (let's call it 5e D&D) doesn't: it obviates the need for anyone to decide the broad structure of what happens next. The results of a dice roll tells us whether what happens next thwarts, in part conforms to, or in large part conforms to, what the character was hoping for. Whereas here's my take on A: [INDENT]* [B]There are a couple of skills you could use[/B] and so someone is responsible for adding narrative to the situation to decide which skill is used - depending on further details about likely differences of success based on which skill, and what the cost is of failing as opposed to succeeding, there is the potential here for significant conflict between participants (Burning Wheel has mechanisms that are part of the system that are intended to blunt these sorts of conflicts; I don't know of any in D&D);[/INDENT] [INDENT][/INDENT] [INDENT]* [B]Circumstances and approach could mean that you either just get the info, just don't, or have to make a check[/B] means that someone has to decide how the information is related to or implicit in the circumstances, and how the information so considered relates to the approach adopted, and maybe meta-considerations like pacing etc, in order to call for a check. The contrast with a system which frames the need for a check in terms of is anything that matters to the character at stake is clear.[/INDENT] What A seems to offer is a situation in which one participant - the GM - has a very strong role in deciding what happens next, and that the main method for integrating other participants' opinions on that is via negotiation and consensus. I'm not sure what you mean by [I]force[/I]. In my experience, a game can [I]cause[/I] a participant to feel things, in something like the same way that watching a film or reading a book or listening to a song can [I]cause [/I]a person to feel things. There's no guarantee that everyone will find a given comedy film funny; but there are things that can be done, in the making of the film, to increase the prospects of the intended audience finding it funny. In RPGing, I think there are things that can be done to increase the likelihood that playing the game will cause participants to feel certain things. These aren't limited to asking you to roleplay a certain stipulated mental state. For instance, Burning Wheel has various "fate points" that are accrued by evincing one's character in certain ways (roughly, by playing to or against Beliefs, Traits and Instincts) which can then be expended to improve the chances of success on checks. Some of them are also the buffer against PC death. And the basic principle of framing and check is [I]always frame towards conflict (given PC Beliefs, Traits and Instincts) [/I]and [I]say 'yes' if nothing relevant to PC Beliefs, Traits and Instincts is at stake; otherwise call for a check[/I]. So engaging with the action resolution system also means making choices about how hard to try, even if that means risking character death, in circumstances where the character's core being and commitments are on the line. This is not the same as being asked to roleplay a mental state. It's nothing like [I]your character is happy - portray that through you narration and action declarations![/I] It's [I]you - as your character - have this choice to make - now how do you choose?[/I] I think this is (at least in part) what [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] is pointing to in contrasting [I]playing the fiction [/I]with improv storytelling; and also what is prompting his remarks about what social/table constraints are present. In order for Burning Wheel play to be viable, there has to be permission at the table to make those choices without concern about how they will affect "the story" or even the immediate situation conceived from a god's eye perspective. A RPG can grant that permission in part via the social norms it establishes in its rulebook; but also via its action resolution system. For instance, one source of those permissions in Burning Wheel play is that other players can - via their PCs - intervene in the behaviour of a PC, by calling for a Duel of Wits to resolve their PC's attempt to talk down another player's PC. This structure of possibilities means that no one ever has to step outside the perspective of their character and ask, from that god's eye perspective, [I]What would be good for the game?[/I] I did read your previous post, after making mine. One (minor) thought I had was that [I]D&D[/I] is being used very capaciously, to include HotFW lifepath PC generation, and other non-canonical methods. Another (more major) thought I had related to this bit: From this, it's very unclear how difficulties are being established - is it easy or hard to bribe the guard? it it easy or hard to bring the officer to your side with a kiss? etc - and also how consequences are being established. And a final thought is that, if you're playing Burning Wheel or Prince Valiant but using d20 vs target number rather than dice pool vs target number, isn't this showing that those systems are flexible? That their basic gameplay survives a change of dice mechanic? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Indie Games Are Not More Focused. They Are Differently Focused.
Top