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="Campbell" data-source="post: 7090266" data-attributes="member: 16586"><p>[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]</p><p></p><p>That is very much the sort of distinction I am trying to make. It might be equally contentious to speak in terms of curation and dynamism. I think my upcoming post on trust models might get at it this issue in a less contentious way while still being somewhat fraught. I value social experiences where we take some risks that might broaden our perspectives and help to get to know each other a bit better. </p><p></p><p>In the context of role playing games I value organic social, creative, and game play risk taking. I also value things being less refined and a bit messy without deliberate provocation of the sort you find in most scene framing or more overt conflict resolution systems. Despite my interests in analysis and design I do not favor overly processing play whether it comes from the mechanisms of play or overt GM actions to modify the play space to ensure everyone gets their individual kicks satisfied. I want to let the game be the game and experience things as they naturally come.</p><p></p><p>I think this speaks to my preference for the principled approach of games like Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, Stars Without Number, Fiasco, Chronicles of Darkness, Exalted 3e, and Sorcerer that is very much subject to individual creative and aesthetic judgment over the more rigorous process oriented approach of games like Fate, Burning Wheel, Cortex+, Night's Black Agents, Trollbabes and the like. I am not a proponent of the Game Design is Mind Control school of thought where we make the attempt to resolve player conflicts of interest through game design so we can play with just about anyone. I am just as skeptical of GM techniques that attempt to resolve player conflicts of interest through the game layer rather than the social layer. Instead I favor more brittle designs that make it socially obvious when there are conflicts of interest at the table so we can talk it out. I favor rules that fight you when you are acting outside the interests of the game rather than force you to act in the interests of the game.</p><p></p><p>I feel like <a href="https://playpassionately.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/overly-processing-play-with-the-rules/" target="_blank">this post from Playing Passionately</a> might lay my points bare.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I will note that I think this article is somewhat unfair to the amount of weight that games like Burning Wheel apply to GM judgement. I just think the process involved can serve to obscure fictional concerns, conflicts of interest, and reduce creative risk somewhat. However, I think that might be somewhat necessary in a game that so adamantly goes for the player's throats. It is something I have the capacity to enjoy - it just reduces the impact of the social layer on play.</p><p></p><p><strong>Aside:</strong> I am a deeply social gamer. Outside of role playing games my favorite sort of games often involve a very strong social layer where you have to consider the impact your decisions will have on other players' decisions. I love Poker, Liar's Dice, Diplomacy, Game of Thrones, Cards Against Humanity, Pandemic, and The Game of Things. Just because you can do something does not mean you should.</p><p></p><p>Aside For [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]: I did not assume you would think I was unfair, but I still regard some of the times where I deliberately provoked you or used one of your posts to make a point as somewhat unfair. I do not generally engage in deliberate provocation and it usually bothers me when I am provoked or my words are used to further some point outside of the context I meant them in so it tends to ignite my sense of justice.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Campbell, post: 7090266, member: 16586"] [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] That is very much the sort of distinction I am trying to make. It might be equally contentious to speak in terms of curation and dynamism. I think my upcoming post on trust models might get at it this issue in a less contentious way while still being somewhat fraught. I value social experiences where we take some risks that might broaden our perspectives and help to get to know each other a bit better. In the context of role playing games I value organic social, creative, and game play risk taking. I also value things being less refined and a bit messy without deliberate provocation of the sort you find in most scene framing or more overt conflict resolution systems. Despite my interests in analysis and design I do not favor overly processing play whether it comes from the mechanisms of play or overt GM actions to modify the play space to ensure everyone gets their individual kicks satisfied. I want to let the game be the game and experience things as they naturally come. I think this speaks to my preference for the principled approach of games like Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, Stars Without Number, Fiasco, Chronicles of Darkness, Exalted 3e, and Sorcerer that is very much subject to individual creative and aesthetic judgment over the more rigorous process oriented approach of games like Fate, Burning Wheel, Cortex+, Night's Black Agents, Trollbabes and the like. I am not a proponent of the Game Design is Mind Control school of thought where we make the attempt to resolve player conflicts of interest through game design so we can play with just about anyone. I am just as skeptical of GM techniques that attempt to resolve player conflicts of interest through the game layer rather than the social layer. Instead I favor more brittle designs that make it socially obvious when there are conflicts of interest at the table so we can talk it out. I favor rules that fight you when you are acting outside the interests of the game rather than force you to act in the interests of the game. I feel like [URL="https://playpassionately.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/overly-processing-play-with-the-rules/"]this post from Playing Passionately[/URL] might lay my points bare. I will note that I think this article is somewhat unfair to the amount of weight that games like Burning Wheel apply to GM judgement. I just think the process involved can serve to obscure fictional concerns, conflicts of interest, and reduce creative risk somewhat. However, I think that might be somewhat necessary in a game that so adamantly goes for the player's throats. It is something I have the capacity to enjoy - it just reduces the impact of the social layer on play. [B]Aside:[/B] I am a deeply social gamer. Outside of role playing games my favorite sort of games often involve a very strong social layer where you have to consider the impact your decisions will have on other players' decisions. I love Poker, Liar's Dice, Diplomacy, Game of Thrones, Cards Against Humanity, Pandemic, and The Game of Things. Just because you can do something does not mean you should. Aside For [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]: I did not assume you would think I was unfair, but I still regard some of the times where I deliberately provoked you or used one of your posts to make a point as somewhat unfair. I do not generally engage in deliberate provocation and it usually bothers me when I am provoked or my words are used to further some point outside of the context I meant them in so it tends to ignite my sense of justice. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Judgement calls vs "railroading"
Top