Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
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: 7084768" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>This happened in the episode of play I described. The advisor had an agenda. He pursued it (as described in the post you quoted). He failed.</p><p></p><p>That is why I disagree with the contrast you drew between "GM-centric" and "player-centric". There is no difference in respect of NPCs pursuit of their agendas. The difference concerns the process whereby the outcome of that agenda is resolved.</p><p></p><p>Huh? Of cousre the advisor can, in the fiction, <em>do things</em> (ie exercise causal power over the fiction). Eg he can say things, which others hear.</p><p></p><p>That's not in dispute.</p><p></p><p>What [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is saying, however, is that <em>the advisor saying things might change the baron's mind about him</em>. Whereas, in the particular context under discussion, that is not going to happen because <em>the baron's mind is already made up</em>. And the players achieved that result, by succeeding at the skill challenge.</p><p></p><p>In other words, the issue is not <em>what can the advisor do in the fiction</em>? It is <em>what directions for the fiction are open, or not, give what has happened at the table</em>?</p><p></p><p>Here is <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?309950-Actual-play-my-first-quot-social-only-quot-session" target="_blank">a link</a> (perhaps the third or fourth time I've linked it in this series of posts) to the actual play report. That post contains the answers to your questions. The short version: the PCs attended dinner with the baron, at the baron's request; they matched wits with the advisor; the advisor lost. Mechanically, this was a skill challenge. It was framed and adjudicated by me, the GM. The skill checks whose resolution determined the outcome were made by the players, for their PCs.</p><p></p><p>As I have already posted, the advisor had his agenda. He pursued it. In the particular context of 4e skill challenge resolution, this occured via my narration of the advisor's actions: to quote from the original actual play report ("Paldemar" is the advisor),</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p>The NPC pursued his goals. He lost. There is no difference between you, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] and me over whether or not NPCs have goals and pursue them. The difference is over <em>how to determine when the PCs fail in that pursuit</em>.</p><p></p><p>This is wrong. The advisor's motivations are central to the scene, as is evident in the description of it in the actual play report (linked and quoted above).</p><p></p><p>No. To repeat mysefl: I'm saying that <em>that already happened, and the NPC lost</em>.</p><p></p><p>This is why I keep using the word <em>finality</em>. The NPC tried to push his agenda, but it didn't work. The PCs' counter-agenda succeeded, resulting in the advisor's standing at court being undone. (This is why, in multiple posts, I have made the comparison to Wormtongue being outed as a traitor at the court of King Thedoen.)</p><p></p><p> [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] didn't identify any difference in purpose. He purported to contrast <em>the world existing for players to pit themselves against, as an antagonist</em> (the characterisation of "player-centric") and <em>the world and NPCs having their own agendas, that they force against players</em> (the characterisation of "GM-centric"). But there is no contrast between these things. They are just two different ways of describing opposition between the PCs and various other elements of the shared fiction.</p><p></p><p>What I am talking about is the difference in <em>how NPC's are run</em>. The particular difference at issue in this discussion is over <em>who gets to determine that a NPC failed in pursuing his/her agenda</em>.</p><p></p><p>The advisor can - in the fiction - do whatever he wants. It's just that <em>at the table, we already know</em> that such stuff is mere colour. The baron's mind is made up about the advisor, because the players won the skill challenge.</p><p></p><p>There's no mystery here. That's what it means to win a skill challenge with the goal (among other things) of estabslishing the baron's opinion of the advisor.</p><p></p><p>On the permanence of this (or of a Geas spell, etc), see my post immediately after the one you replied to. Dispelling the geas is in the same general ballpark of GM moves as raising the defeated enemy from the dead, etc. The issue of when results can be reopened is a significant one. But they can't be reopened in the session immediately following the players' victory, when nothing in the fiction has changed to reopen them, and nothing at the table has changed either (eg the players haven't had a subsequent failure, which might have as its consequence the advisor once again growing in the baron's estimation).</p><p></p><p>I don't at all understand how the players winning a skill challenge is meant to be analogous to the PCs <em>losing</em> a battle. However, if that is how you see it, it would help explain why you do not share my view about the significance of the players' successs.</p><p></p><p>This is interesting.</p><p></p><p>In the actual game that this came from, the advisor - having lost socially - set out to win via brute magical power (ie the scene transitioned into a combat scene). The players had no objection to this: in D&D 4e combat is, in general, a "legitimate" (heck, even a default) mode of presenting and resolving opposition; and it followed naturally from what they had succeeded in doing (goading the advisor into outing himself).</p><p></p><p>In BW, I think it would depend on other elements of context - eg, what other Beliefs various PCs have about the advisor, opposing demon summoners, etc.</p><p></p><p>I agree that there are constraints on framing that go beyond asking "What would I do if I were an evil advisor outed at court?"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7084768, member: 42582"] This happened in the episode of play I described. The advisor had an agenda. He pursued it (as described in the post you quoted). He failed. That is why I disagree with the contrast you drew between "GM-centric" and "player-centric". There is no difference in respect of NPCs pursuit of their agendas. The difference concerns the process whereby the outcome of that agenda is resolved. Huh? Of cousre the advisor can, in the fiction, [I]do things[/I] (ie exercise causal power over the fiction). Eg he can say things, which others hear. That's not in dispute. What [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is saying, however, is that [I]the advisor saying things might change the baron's mind about him[/I]. Whereas, in the particular context under discussion, that is not going to happen because [I]the baron's mind is already made up[/I]. And the players achieved that result, by succeeding at the skill challenge. In other words, the issue is not [i]what can the advisor do in the fiction[/I]? It is [I]what directions for the fiction are open, or not, give what has happened at the table[/I]? Here is [url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?309950-Actual-play-my-first-quot-social-only-quot-session]a link[/url] (perhaps the third or fourth time I've linked it in this series of posts) to the actual play report. That post contains the answers to your questions. The short version: the PCs attended dinner with the baron, at the baron's request; they matched wits with the advisor; the advisor lost. Mechanically, this was a skill challenge. It was framed and adjudicated by me, the GM. The skill checks whose resolution determined the outcome were made by the players, for their PCs. As I have already posted, the advisor had his agenda. He pursued it. In the particular context of 4e skill challenge resolution, this occured via my narration of the advisor's actions: to quote from the original actual play report ("Paldemar" is the advisor), [indent][/indent] The NPC pursued his goals. He lost. There is no difference between you, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] and me over whether or not NPCs have goals and pursue them. The difference is over [I]how to determine when the PCs fail in that pursuit[/I]. This is wrong. The advisor's motivations are central to the scene, as is evident in the description of it in the actual play report (linked and quoted above). No. To repeat mysefl: I'm saying that [I]that already happened, and the NPC lost[/I]. This is why I keep using the word [I]finality[/I]. The NPC tried to push his agenda, but it didn't work. The PCs' counter-agenda succeeded, resulting in the advisor's standing at court being undone. (This is why, in multiple posts, I have made the comparison to Wormtongue being outed as a traitor at the court of King Thedoen.) [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] didn't identify any difference in purpose. He purported to contrast [i]the world existing for players to pit themselves against, as an antagonist[/i] (the characterisation of "player-centric") and [i]the world and NPCs having their own agendas, that they force against players[/i] (the characterisation of "GM-centric"). But there is no contrast between these things. They are just two different ways of describing opposition between the PCs and various other elements of the shared fiction. What I am talking about is the difference in [I]how NPC's are run[/I]. The particular difference at issue in this discussion is over [I]who gets to determine that a NPC failed in pursuing his/her agenda[/I]. The advisor can - in the fiction - do whatever he wants. It's just that [I]at the table, we already know[/I] that such stuff is mere colour. The baron's mind is made up about the advisor, because the players won the skill challenge. There's no mystery here. That's what it means to win a skill challenge with the goal (among other things) of estabslishing the baron's opinion of the advisor. On the permanence of this (or of a Geas spell, etc), see my post immediately after the one you replied to. Dispelling the geas is in the same general ballpark of GM moves as raising the defeated enemy from the dead, etc. The issue of when results can be reopened is a significant one. But they can't be reopened in the session immediately following the players' victory, when nothing in the fiction has changed to reopen them, and nothing at the table has changed either (eg the players haven't had a subsequent failure, which might have as its consequence the advisor once again growing in the baron's estimation). I don't at all understand how the players winning a skill challenge is meant to be analogous to the PCs [I]losing[/I] a battle. However, if that is how you see it, it would help explain why you do not share my view about the significance of the players' successs. This is interesting. In the actual game that this came from, the advisor - having lost socially - set out to win via brute magical power (ie the scene transitioned into a combat scene). The players had no objection to this: in D&D 4e combat is, in general, a "legitimate" (heck, even a default) mode of presenting and resolving opposition; and it followed naturally from what they had succeeded in doing (goading the advisor into outing himself). In BW, I think it would depend on other elements of context - eg, what other Beliefs various PCs have about the advisor, opposing demon summoners, etc. I agree that there are constraints on framing that go beyond asking "What would I do if I were an evil advisor outed at court?" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
Top