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
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: 7087940" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Yes.</p><p></p><p>Here is the action declaration: <em>I go out to buy some Calimshan silk</em>.</p><p></p><p>Here is the GM's response: <em>Sorry, there's none available.</em> Perhaps the GM adds: <em>You hear rumours that their's turmoil in Calimshan and all their exports have dried up.</em></p><p></p><p>The GM's response is not consequent upon any engaging of the mechanics (in 4e this might be a Streetwise check; in BW it would be a Resources check, potentially augmented by an appropriate knowledge check; in Cortext+/MHRP it would be a spend of a plot point to establish a Resource). It is a narration of failure based on an element of the fiction that has been authored by the GM and is hidden from the player in the framing of the check.</p><p></p><p>Well, this relates to the point [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] made upthread:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p>Namely, is the penalty known or knowable via engaging the situation, as part of the process of resolution before the penalty that follows from the secret backstory actually makes its impact on the outcome of resolution?</p><p></p><p>I also think that Campbell's adverb <em>meaningful</em> is carrying a fair bit of weight hear. What is <em>meaningful</em>, in the context of play, is not subject to unilateral determination by the GM. To quote Campbell again, </p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p>I'll come back to this below.</p><p></p><p>Based on the framing. Eg, to return to the OP, "You're looking for a vessel in the room of a comatose person in a well-appointed mage's tower? Not hard to find such a thing in such a place: Easy (= Ob 1, in technical terms)."</p><p></p><p>Or, to quote from another actual play post:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p>The framing establishes the fiction (eg there's a rift in the Abyss; I'm a chaos mage whose very essence might power up entropic effects; etc). The player engages the fiction in declaring the action. The logic of the fiction, plus the result of the check (success or failure) tells us what happens.</p><p></p><p>If key elements of the fiction are secret from, or not meaningfully knowable, to the player, then (as per Campbell's post that I quoted) s/he can't engage the fiction in the process of declaring his/her PC's action.</p><p></p><p>There's an <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?309950-Actual-play-my-first-quot-social-only-quot-session" target="_blank">actual play thread</a> that answers many of these questions. Here is a quote from it:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p>You'll see that the players declared actions for their PCs: that's their job, not mine. They decide what they think is useful to engage the fiction.</p><p></p><p>On successes, they succeeded. On failures, I narrated the consequences - eg the advisor walking out rather than responding to the PC's taunt.</p><p></p><p>The maths of 4e dicatates that most checks will succeed - hence the need, as a GM in a skill challenge, to keep introducing new obstacles, or at least new dimensions to existing obstacles, to ensure that the PCs have reasons to continue to act, and hence the players have reasons to continue to declare actions for their PCs. In the quote you can see an example of that - the advisor saying to Derrik, trying to ridicule and humiliate him, "You must have said something very serious, to so upset the Baron." And you can see how that establishes framing for the final Initimidate check. There is no secret backstory at work.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7087940, member: 42582"] Yes. Here is the action declaration: [I]I go out to buy some Calimshan silk[/I]. Here is the GM's response: [I]Sorry, there's none available.[/i] Perhaps the GM adds: [i]You hear rumours that their's turmoil in Calimshan and all their exports have dried up.[/I] The GM's response is not consequent upon any engaging of the mechanics (in 4e this might be a Streetwise check; in BW it would be a Resources check, potentially augmented by an appropriate knowledge check; in Cortext+/MHRP it would be a spend of a plot point to establish a Resource). It is a narration of failure based on an element of the fiction that has been authored by the GM and is hidden from the player in the framing of the check. Well, this relates to the point [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] made upthread: [indent][/indent] Namely, is the penalty known or knowable via engaging the situation, as part of the process of resolution before the penalty that follows from the secret backstory actually makes its impact on the outcome of resolution? I also think that Campbell's adverb [I]meaningful[/I] is carrying a fair bit of weight hear. What is [I]meaningful[/I], in the context of play, is not subject to unilateral determination by the GM. To quote Campbell again, [indent][/indent] I'll come back to this below. Based on the framing. Eg, to return to the OP, "You're looking for a vessel in the room of a comatose person in a well-appointed mage's tower? Not hard to find such a thing in such a place: Easy (= Ob 1, in technical terms)." Or, to quote from another actual play post: [indent][/indent] The framing establishes the fiction (eg there's a rift in the Abyss; I'm a chaos mage whose very essence might power up entropic effects; etc). The player engages the fiction in declaring the action. The logic of the fiction, plus the result of the check (success or failure) tells us what happens. If key elements of the fiction are secret from, or not meaningfully knowable, to the player, then (as per Campbell's post that I quoted) s/he can't engage the fiction in the process of declaring his/her PC's action. There's an [url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?309950-Actual-play-my-first-quot-social-only-quot-session]actual play thread[/url] that answers many of these questions. Here is a quote from it: [indent][/indent] You'll see that the players declared actions for their PCs: that's their job, not mine. They decide what they think is useful to engage the fiction. On successes, they succeeded. On failures, I narrated the consequences - eg the advisor walking out rather than responding to the PC's taunt. The maths of 4e dicatates that most checks will succeed - hence the need, as a GM in a skill challenge, to keep introducing new obstacles, or at least new dimensions to existing obstacles, to ensure that the PCs have reasons to continue to act, and hence the players have reasons to continue to declare actions for their PCs. In the quote you can see an example of that - the advisor saying to Derrik, trying to ridicule and humiliate him, "You must have said something very serious, to so upset the Baron." And you can see how that establishes framing for the final Initimidate check. There is no secret backstory at work. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
Top