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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?
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: 7616935" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Somewhat contra [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], it often doesn't matter at all if the players think different things about the fiction.</p><p></p><p>Last Sunday I GMed a session of Prince Valiant. One of the PCs is a bard/entertainer who wears "colourful clothes". What colour(s) are they? We've never specified. If I think about it I guess I think red, orange, yellow, maybe blue also. What does the player of that character have in mind? Or any of the other players?</p><p></p><p>Another PC has a jewelled sword that grants a bonus in certain social situations. What sorts of jewels? Colour? Size? Monetary value? Again, it's never come up. What colour are the horses? Ditto.</p><p></p><p>When the PCs boarded a ship to France, how long was it? How broad of beam? When it foundered on a rock shelf, and I described the water between the ship and the beach as "shallow", how shallow? As per the scenario I was using, I called for Difficulty 3 Brawn tests to get to shore unharmed. The rules describe that as a Normal difficulty, sitting between Easy and Difficult, but in this particular context it was fairly hard - Brawn 4 is above average (perhaps comparable to a 13 STR and/or CON in D&D), and the chance of getting 3+ successes on 4 coin tosses is 5/16, so we coud compare Difficulty 3 to DC 16.</p><p></p><p>Was that difficulty due primarily to the depth of the water, the wildness of the storm, the dark of the night, the slippery and harsh nature of the rocks, or - more likely - all of them in combination? The rules don't require us to specify, and different players may have been envisaging the ficiton differently in the details though no doubt the broad brushstrokes were pretty similar (eg water mostly less than head height, but big waves breaking, and hence a real danger of being dashed on the rocks).</p><p></p><p>I'm reminded of this discussion of GMing techniques from the Maelstrom Storytelling rulebook, under the heading "Literal vs Conceptual"; I first learned about this RPG from Ron Edwards's essays before picking up a copy second-hand, and while I've never played it it's certainly influenced my approach to GMing and narration:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">A good way to run the Hubris Engine is to use "scene ideas" to convey the scene, instead of literalisms. . . . focus on the intent behind the scene and not on how big or how far things might be. If the difficulty of the task at hand (such as jumping across a chasm in a cave) is explained in terms of difficulty, it doesn't matter how far across the actual chasm spans. In a movie, for instance, the camera zooms or pans to emphasize the danger or emotional reaction to the scene, and in so doing it manipulates the real distance of a chasm to suit the mood or "feel" of the moment. It is then no longer about how far across the character has to jump, but how hard the feat is for the character. . . . If the players enjoy the challenge of figuring out how high and far someone can jump, they should be allowed the pleasure of doing so - as long as it doesn't interfere with the narrative flow and enjoyment of the game.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The scene should be presented therefore in terms relative to the character's abilities . . . Players who want to climb onto your coffee table and jump across your living room to prove that their character could jump over the chasm have probably missed the whole point of the story.</p><p></p><p>Commenting on this, <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html" target="_blank">Ron Edwards says</a> that "I can think of no better text to explain the vast difference between playing the games <em>RuneQuest</em> and <em>HeroQuest</em>." Which is to say, there are some systems which make enginnering or cartographical precision central to resolution, but there are others that don't. Certainly establishing a call to action doesn't depend upon any general uniformity or specificity of imagination. I think it does require estagblishing the situation by reference to the resolution mechanics - the plaeyrs can't answer the call if they don't know, in general terms, how their characters might fare.</p><p></p><p>Which goes back to [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s point some way upthread: RPGs have ways of establishing the emotinal "heft" of situations that are quite different from the sort of evocative composition or performances that other creative endeavours rely upon In my 4e game, for instance, if the players are committed to confronting Orcus, and I - as I did, following a successful knowledge check by the Sage of Ages - tell them his stats, then the players respond with the apposite awe, fear, etc. I don't need to evoke, by deft narration, a sense of how terrible Orcus is. The stats do that work.</p><p></p><p>Of course different systems open up and close down different sorts of possibiities in this respect. For instance, in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic it is the state of the Doom Pool, as much as the stats of any individual antagonist, that conveys the significance of the present situation. And in Dungeon World or Apocalypse World antagonists don't quite have "stats" in the way they do in D&D or Cortex+, and so system conveys heft in different ways, sch as the plauers' perceptions of possible interactions between the moves they want to make with their PCs and the current state of the fiction that might feed into GM moves if those player-side moves fail.</p><p></p><p>This is also one reason why, in RPGing, system matters.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7616935, member: 42582"] Somewhat contra [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], it often doesn't matter at all if the players think different things about the fiction. Last Sunday I GMed a session of Prince Valiant. One of the PCs is a bard/entertainer who wears "colourful clothes". What colour(s) are they? We've never specified. If I think about it I guess I think red, orange, yellow, maybe blue also. What does the player of that character have in mind? Or any of the other players? Another PC has a jewelled sword that grants a bonus in certain social situations. What sorts of jewels? Colour? Size? Monetary value? Again, it's never come up. What colour are the horses? Ditto. When the PCs boarded a ship to France, how long was it? How broad of beam? When it foundered on a rock shelf, and I described the water between the ship and the beach as "shallow", how shallow? As per the scenario I was using, I called for Difficulty 3 Brawn tests to get to shore unharmed. The rules describe that as a Normal difficulty, sitting between Easy and Difficult, but in this particular context it was fairly hard - Brawn 4 is above average (perhaps comparable to a 13 STR and/or CON in D&D), and the chance of getting 3+ successes on 4 coin tosses is 5/16, so we coud compare Difficulty 3 to DC 16. Was that difficulty due primarily to the depth of the water, the wildness of the storm, the dark of the night, the slippery and harsh nature of the rocks, or - more likely - all of them in combination? The rules don't require us to specify, and different players may have been envisaging the ficiton differently in the details though no doubt the broad brushstrokes were pretty similar (eg water mostly less than head height, but big waves breaking, and hence a real danger of being dashed on the rocks). I'm reminded of this discussion of GMing techniques from the Maelstrom Storytelling rulebook, under the heading "Literal vs Conceptual"; I first learned about this RPG from Ron Edwards's essays before picking up a copy second-hand, and while I've never played it it's certainly influenced my approach to GMing and narration: [indent]A good way to run the Hubris Engine is to use "scene ideas" to convey the scene, instead of literalisms. . . . focus on the intent behind the scene and not on how big or how far things might be. If the difficulty of the task at hand (such as jumping across a chasm in a cave) is explained in terms of difficulty, it doesn't matter how far across the actual chasm spans. In a movie, for instance, the camera zooms or pans to emphasize the danger or emotional reaction to the scene, and in so doing it manipulates the real distance of a chasm to suit the mood or "feel" of the moment. It is then no longer about how far across the character has to jump, but how hard the feat is for the character. . . . If the players enjoy the challenge of figuring out how high and far someone can jump, they should be allowed the pleasure of doing so - as long as it doesn't interfere with the narrative flow and enjoyment of the game. The scene should be presented therefore in terms relative to the character's abilities . . . Players who want to climb onto your coffee table and jump across your living room to prove that their character could jump over the chasm have probably missed the whole point of the story.[/indent] Commenting on this, [url=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html]Ron Edwards says[/url] that "I can think of no better text to explain the vast difference between playing the games [i]RuneQuest[/i] and [i]HeroQuest[/i]." Which is to say, there are some systems which make enginnering or cartographical precision central to resolution, but there are others that don't. Certainly establishing a call to action doesn't depend upon any general uniformity or specificity of imagination. I think it does require estagblishing the situation by reference to the resolution mechanics - the plaeyrs can't answer the call if they don't know, in general terms, how their characters might fare. Which goes back to [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION]'s point some way upthread: RPGs have ways of establishing the emotinal "heft" of situations that are quite different from the sort of evocative composition or performances that other creative endeavours rely upon In my 4e game, for instance, if the players are committed to confronting Orcus, and I - as I did, following a successful knowledge check by the Sage of Ages - tell them his stats, then the players respond with the apposite awe, fear, etc. I don't need to evoke, by deft narration, a sense of how terrible Orcus is. The stats do that work. Of course different systems open up and close down different sorts of possibiities in this respect. For instance, in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic it is the state of the Doom Pool, as much as the stats of any individual antagonist, that conveys the significance of the present situation. And in Dungeon World or Apocalypse World antagonists don't quite have "stats" in the way they do in D&D or Cortex+, and so system conveys heft in different ways, sch as the plauers' perceptions of possible interactions between the moves they want to make with their PCs and the current state of the fiction that might feed into GM moves if those player-side moves fail. This is also one reason why, in RPGing, system matters. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?
Top