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
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: 7086057" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I feel that I've already posted about this at some length, most recently in my reply to [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] just upthread of this post.</p><p></p><p>If something happens in the course of play to reopen the matter - eg, as per the example I've given, the players make choices that put their relationship with the baron to the test - then things can change.</p><p></p><p>But the GM can't just change it unilaterally. Not even if the fiction that the GM narrates to make sense of the change is really clever fiction! ("Guys, I bet you didn't see that one coming!")</p><p></p><p>As I've posted, the advisor can do whatever he wants to try and get the baron to return to his arms and turn on the PCs. But, at the table, we know that he will fail, because the matter has been resolved. This is why, as I said, his continue (but ultimately futile) attempts would be mere colour.</p><p></p><p>The advisor trying to forment a prisoners' revolt would not be off the table, however - that does not fall within the scope of what the skill challenge settled (namely, the advisor's revelation as a traitor in a manner that redounds upon him and not the PCs). Had the advisor in fact been sent to prison, that might have been one way of framing the next challenge that confronts the PCs.</p><p></p><p>Judging what is or not permissible - what sort of framing honours rather than wrongly negates the players' victories, the established fiction, the players' commitments for their PCs, etc - is crucial to GMing in the style that I prefer. Here's an illustration of the point (from BW Gold, p 54):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">We once had a character with the Belief: “I will one day restore my wife’s life.” His wife had died, and he kept her body around, trying to figure out a way to bring her back. Well, mid-way through the game, the GM magically restored his wife to the land of the living. I’ve never seen a more crushed player. He didn't know what do! He had stated that the quest and the struggle was the goal, not the end result. “One day!” he said. But the GM insisted, and the whole scenario and character were ruined for the player.</p><p></p><p>And here's <a href="http://" target="_blank">a statement of the point</a>, rather than an illustration:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">[The GM's] job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments . . . by introducing complications. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">[O]nce the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character . . . . The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end.</p><p></p><p>This also relates back to my discussion with [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] about "GMing blind". I hope it's clear that a GM can't run a game in this sort of way without understanding, both in general and at the crunch point, what the player takes to be motivating his/her PC.</p><p></p><p>Well, what you call a system fault, I call a system strength.</p><p></p><p>(I also don't see this radical difference between befriending someone and picking a lock. How do you know that you gave it your best shot? Only because the dice tell you! Yesterday I was having trouble with a stiff lock - I thought I'd given it my best shot, and didn't want to break the key in it. Then I jiggled a bit more and it opened! But there's this colleague at work whom I'd like to befriend, and whom I've tried to befriend, but for whatever reason I just think it's not going to happen between us.)</p><p></p><p>And in any event, as I posted in reply to [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], finality in resolution is hardly a novel thing. The AD&D rules for subduing dragons (and some other, slightly vague categories of monsters) allow for finality in a social-type context.</p><p></p><p>I think the OSR doesn't agree that they're outdated - and I mention them as illustrations of the point. The original AD&D designers understood the significance of finality of resolution in game play.</p><p></p><p>No doubt you think that the subdual rules are old and out-dated also!</p><p></p><p>How do you know that I didn't have to? What rulebook are you quoting from? Where do you get the authority to establish who enjoys what permissions at my group's table?</p><p></p><p>EDIT: Also, re combat: in D&D <em>nothing tells you that the ogre is dead except a mechanical process of tabulation of successes</em>. Why, in principle, can the same procedure not be used to tell you other stuff about the ogre? What is it about <em>death</em> that makes it uniquely suited to being established, as an element of the fiction, in such a manner? Nothing that I can see.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7086057, member: 42582"] I feel that I've already posted about this at some length, most recently in my reply to [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] just upthread of this post. If something happens in the course of play to reopen the matter - eg, as per the example I've given, the players make choices that put their relationship with the baron to the test - then things can change. But the GM can't just change it unilaterally. Not even if the fiction that the GM narrates to make sense of the change is really clever fiction! ("Guys, I bet you didn't see that one coming!") As I've posted, the advisor can do whatever he wants to try and get the baron to return to his arms and turn on the PCs. But, at the table, we know that he will fail, because the matter has been resolved. This is why, as I said, his continue (but ultimately futile) attempts would be mere colour. The advisor trying to forment a prisoners' revolt would not be off the table, however - that does not fall within the scope of what the skill challenge settled (namely, the advisor's revelation as a traitor in a manner that redounds upon him and not the PCs). Had the advisor in fact been sent to prison, that might have been one way of framing the next challenge that confronts the PCs. Judging what is or not permissible - what sort of framing honours rather than wrongly negates the players' victories, the established fiction, the players' commitments for their PCs, etc - is crucial to GMing in the style that I prefer. Here's an illustration of the point (from BW Gold, p 54): [indent]We once had a character with the Belief: “I will one day restore my wife’s life.” His wife had died, and he kept her body around, trying to figure out a way to bring her back. Well, mid-way through the game, the GM magically restored his wife to the land of the living. I’ve never seen a more crushed player. He didn't know what do! He had stated that the quest and the struggle was the goal, not the end result. “One day!” he said. But the GM insisted, and the whole scenario and character were ruined for the player.[/indent] And here's [url=]a statement of the point[/url], rather than an illustration: [indent][The GM's] job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments . . . by introducing complications. . . . [O]nce the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character . . . . The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end.[/indent] This also relates back to my discussion with [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION] about "GMing blind". I hope it's clear that a GM can't run a game in this sort of way without understanding, both in general and at the crunch point, what the player takes to be motivating his/her PC. Well, what you call a system fault, I call a system strength. (I also don't see this radical difference between befriending someone and picking a lock. How do you know that you gave it your best shot? Only because the dice tell you! Yesterday I was having trouble with a stiff lock - I thought I'd given it my best shot, and didn't want to break the key in it. Then I jiggled a bit more and it opened! But there's this colleague at work whom I'd like to befriend, and whom I've tried to befriend, but for whatever reason I just think it's not going to happen between us.) And in any event, as I posted in reply to [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION], finality in resolution is hardly a novel thing. The AD&D rules for subduing dragons (and some other, slightly vague categories of monsters) allow for finality in a social-type context. I think the OSR doesn't agree that they're outdated - and I mention them as illustrations of the point. The original AD&D designers understood the significance of finality of resolution in game play. No doubt you think that the subdual rules are old and out-dated also! How do you know that I didn't have to? What rulebook are you quoting from? Where do you get the authority to establish who enjoys what permissions at my group's table? EDIT: Also, re combat: in D&D [I]nothing tells you that the ogre is dead except a mechanical process of tabulation of successes[/I]. Why, in principle, can the same procedure not be used to tell you other stuff about the ogre? What is it about [I]death[/I] that makes it uniquely suited to being established, as an element of the fiction, in such a manner? Nothing that I can see. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
Top