Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9843960" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm not sure what you mean by "what player choices or actions are curtailed?" I mean, the most straightforward answer is none. But presumably that's not the answer you're looking for?In conventional D&D play, what sorts of actions are curtailed or prohibited? Well, if the rules tell you that your PC is dead, that affects permitted action declarations. Likewise if the rules tell you that your PC is paralysed, or trapped in an oubliette, or whatever.Upthread I posted the rules for duels from Wuthering Heights. In those rules, if both duellists fail to role below their Rage then "they stop the duel and become friends, or something like that. They would not fight again for 1d10 days." So if the rules tell you that you're not fighting with someone anymore -that you become friends, or something like that - then that affects your permitted action declarations.Consider again the PC trapped in the oubliette. Suppose the player declares, "I search for a secret way out." In conventional D&D play, the most important factor in determining whether or not the character succeeds in their attempt to find a secret way out is what decision has the GM made about whether or not there is a secret way out of this oubliette. In Marvel Heroic RP, by way of contrast, there is no GM decision of that sort that is relevant to resolving the declared action: it is resolved by a roll against the Doom Pool (as augmented by any appropriate Scene Distinctions, such as (eg) No Way Out). In Burning Wheel, depending on further details no roll may be required for the PC to find a way out; but if a roll is required then again its outcome will not depend on a GM decision, but will depend upon the result of a roll on Perception or Secret Passage-wise or whatever skill(s) the player and GM agree is relevant to resolving the declared action.Games have rules and procedures, and these determine what actions can be declared, how they are resolved, etc. Framing this in terms of "curtailment or prohibition" doesn't seem that helpful to me. That assumes some sort of baseline that doesn't exist, even as an ideal.I agree with the last sentence. I think you are slightly understating what is required to get "story oriented play" out of GURPS. I'll admit I've never done it with GURPS, but I've done it with Rolemaster. And as well as agenda and principles of the sort that you point to, you also need to be ready to work around mechanics that are resolutely committed to foregrounding an ethos-neutral setting, rather than an ethos-laden situation.Here's just one example of what I mean: Burning Wheel and Torchbearer 2e have a Circles mechanics, which is similar (not identical) across the two games. It permits a player to make a roll to have their PC encounter a friendly/useful/helpful NPC; the difficulty of the roll is set by a range of factors, including (but not limited to) the degree of the NPC's friendliness/usefulness/helpfulness. If the Circles roll is failed, the GM has a range of options as to how to narrate the failure, but one important one is to bring onto the scene a NPC who is hostile to the player's PC, or at a minimum is unhelpful or unfriendly in a way that foregrounds, but dashes, the hopes the PC had which the player was giving effect to by making the Circles roll.Here's an example from actual play:I've included the context leading up to the Circles roll, because it is important for seeing how the outcome of the Circles roll contributed to story: Aedhros, who is a Dark Elf in the Tolkien-esque sense, is being bullied and dictated to by Thoth; he tries to abduct a woman, but fails; he then has the possibility of rising above this sordidness, first by Singing - but this fails, and so the GM narrates that a guard comes - and then the Circles attempt, to have Elves turn up and affirm Aedhros, also fails - and so the GM narrates another guard coming. And then, presented with this situation as a player, and playing my character, Aedhros falls back into sordidness - first bribing the guards, and then kidnapping one of them so that Thoth can perform Blood Magic on him.Rolemaster (and I think this is also true of GURPS) has no analogue of the narration of Circles failure (or of Singing failure, for that matter): there's no provision for using the failed Streetwise or Etiquette or whatever test as a trigger for escalating the conflict across the moral line/question that is the focus of play. And so it's much harder to reliably get rising action culminating in climax/resolution.[USER=467]@Reynard[/USER], this example should also answer some of your questions. There's no prohibition/curtailment of action declarations. But there are principles that govern how situations are established and how consequences are decided upon. This is what creates the story, in the sense of protagonists in a situation of conflict, with rising action and climax/resolution.Of course, in AD&D 2nd ed, the GM can narrate a guard turning up if they like. But there is no process to govern this - they can do it if the Sing check is successful, and they don't have to do anything if the Sing check fails other than narrate that Aedhros can't sing well today (which undercuts the sense of a protagonist in a conflict, because it tends to make the characters look silly). Story won't result unless the GM decides that it will - which means that authorship of a story is required. That's not the case in Burning Wheel: the GM just has to follow the rules for how to narrate the consequence of a failed roll.</blockquote>

Verification