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="Aenghus" data-source="post: 7086649" data-attributes="member: 2656"><p>As I see it stake setting, skill challenges etc among other things allow a question to be asked and answered in a relatively short time. The referee and players have to agree what the question is and roughly what the stakes are and based on what transpires the players succeed or fail after the set number of successes or failures connected to the fiction, or whatever other methods are being used. The answer, win or lose, needs to be relatively final, no takebacks or retrys from any involved parties. This is why a genuine agreement as to stakes is the most vital step and everyone needs to accept the consequences, particularly the referee. Among other things this is a timesaving measure to try and avoid timewasting play that makes everyone frustrated.</p><p></p><p>You see, a very common failure mode I've seen in all sorts of RPGs is where the players get hugely invested in some task that the referee conscious or unconsciously believes is impossible or exceedingly difficult but is unwilling to tell them thatt. The former case is bad enough when the referee is unwilling to just come out and say they don't think something can be done, whatever it is. The latter case is worse for the game as the referee can always ask for another check and wait for someone to fail, without necessarily realising what they are doing, and wanting the players to fail is the doom of many a game. Too much of this double jeopardy makes for gunshy players who avoid risks. </p><p></p><p>Subduing a dragon in early D&D was difficult. If players accomplished it and treated the dragon reasonably, having the dragon break out and run away shortly afterwards is a dick move that will just ensure the players never interact with that game mechanic again under that referee. Similarly for interacting with an NPC and discovering that the players reasonable plan to affect that NPC can't ultimately work because of reasons unknown and unknowable to them cause the referee to claw their hard won success back, again leading to wasted time and frustration in the game. </p><p></p><p>So stake setting type mechanics put the onus on referees to own up during the stake negotiations and not agree to anything they can't live with. Once they've agreed on the terms, the terms are set. Yes, this is artificial but it keeps the game moving and forces answers to questions in a reasonable timeframe, answers that everyone has agreed to live with. The reduction in timewasting is the big potential payoff.</p><p></p><p>These methods fail if anyone negotiates in bad faith and doesn't deliver.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Aenghus, post: 7086649, member: 2656"] As I see it stake setting, skill challenges etc among other things allow a question to be asked and answered in a relatively short time. The referee and players have to agree what the question is and roughly what the stakes are and based on what transpires the players succeed or fail after the set number of successes or failures connected to the fiction, or whatever other methods are being used. The answer, win or lose, needs to be relatively final, no takebacks or retrys from any involved parties. This is why a genuine agreement as to stakes is the most vital step and everyone needs to accept the consequences, particularly the referee. Among other things this is a timesaving measure to try and avoid timewasting play that makes everyone frustrated. You see, a very common failure mode I've seen in all sorts of RPGs is where the players get hugely invested in some task that the referee conscious or unconsciously believes is impossible or exceedingly difficult but is unwilling to tell them thatt. The former case is bad enough when the referee is unwilling to just come out and say they don't think something can be done, whatever it is. The latter case is worse for the game as the referee can always ask for another check and wait for someone to fail, without necessarily realising what they are doing, and wanting the players to fail is the doom of many a game. Too much of this double jeopardy makes for gunshy players who avoid risks. Subduing a dragon in early D&D was difficult. If players accomplished it and treated the dragon reasonably, having the dragon break out and run away shortly afterwards is a dick move that will just ensure the players never interact with that game mechanic again under that referee. Similarly for interacting with an NPC and discovering that the players reasonable plan to affect that NPC can't ultimately work because of reasons unknown and unknowable to them cause the referee to claw their hard won success back, again leading to wasted time and frustration in the game. So stake setting type mechanics put the onus on referees to own up during the stake negotiations and not agree to anything they can't live with. Once they've agreed on the terms, the terms are set. Yes, this is artificial but it keeps the game moving and forces answers to questions in a reasonable timeframe, answers that everyone has agreed to live with. The reduction in timewasting is the big potential payoff. These methods fail if anyone negotiates in bad faith and doesn't deliver. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
Top