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
Monte Cook On Fumble Mechanics
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: 7695290" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>There seem to be at least three things going on here.</p><p></p><p>First, you seem to be saying that you don't play or run "fail forward"-style games. As I conjectured upthread. I think this helps me understand why your characterisation of the techniques used in those games seems out of touch with the actual practice.</p><p></p><p>Second, and elaborating on that "out-of-touchness" - you correctly point out that, in such a game, there is no universal or generalisable ordering of outcomes from "best" to "worst" for the PCs, but then incorrectly infer that, as a result, there is no difference between "near success", "success with complications", etc. This is not so. Actual play examples have been given upthread that illustrate that this is not so.</p><p></p><p>In any given moment of resolution, a range of different narrations for failure may be available to the GM (in the sense that all would fit with the established fiction, maintain the impetus of play, etc) - some may be success with complications (yes, the feather is an angel feather, but is also cursed); some may be partial success (you have reached the Abor-Alz, but the waterhole you were heading for is fouled); some may be total failure (the mace is not in the tower where you were hoping to find it; instead, you find black arrows apparently crafted by your brother). The GM's job is to choose between these. Making good choices is part of the skill of GMing this sort of game. (Somewhat comparably to the Gygaxian GM needing the skill of good dungeon design.) One of the things the GM will be having regard to is the way in which the outcome is success, or near-success (which is a form of less-than-total failure), or total failure - each of which has different potential consequences for the impetus of play. Another will be the degree of complication, and/or of escalation, introduced by an outcome - which matters to pacing, potentially to resource depletion, etc. Further relevant factors will be things like how many PCs a given outcome involves, connections between outcomes and player flags, etc.</p><p></p><p>The third thing you raise is at what point the stakes are set. On that matter, I'll speak to Burning Wheel. The rulebooks say that stakes are set before the dice are rolled. In his GMing advice (the Adventure Burner), Luke Crane notes that, at his table, he tends to ignore this rule and to leave the stakes implicit. He goes on to say that this works because he plays with people who know him and trust him, and so can appreciate the stakes implicit in the ingame situation. He goes on to encourage his reader to follow the written rules.</p><p></p><p>When I GM my BW game, it is for people whom I've known for over 20 years and who have all been RPGing with me as GM for most of that time. I therefore generally (not always) leave the stakes implicit. If I was GMing for comparative strangers I'd probably take a different approach.</p><p></p><p>You express concerns about GM antagonism/fairness. That's not really the relevant notion - or rather, the rulebook will answer it. In BW, for instance, the GM should basically <em>always</em> be antagonistic, in the sense of pushing the players hard in relation to their PCs and their flags. But the GM should also always be maintaining the momentum of play, which means that dead-ends or arbitrary shut-downs are not in the repertoire. Rather than antagonism or fairness, the issues that confront GMs in this sort of system tend to be managing backstory in a consistent way - given that a lot of fiction, from the existence of the dark elf who fouls the waterhole, to the existence of the curse on the feather, to the absence of the mace but the presence of brother-manufactured black arrows in the tower, is being authored in the spot - and avoiding outcomes that a boring, unmotivating to the players, or shut-downs.</p><p></p><p>(These games also tend to have mechanical solutions to some of these problems. For instance, they tend to have more flexible and generalisable action-resolution mechanics - not unlike 4e's skill challenges - so that the propsect of any situation being a shut-down is reduced, because the players have highly flexible mechanical tools to try and impact the fiction.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7695290, member: 42582"] There seem to be at least three things going on here. First, you seem to be saying that you don't play or run "fail forward"-style games. As I conjectured upthread. I think this helps me understand why your characterisation of the techniques used in those games seems out of touch with the actual practice. Second, and elaborating on that "out-of-touchness" - you correctly point out that, in such a game, there is no universal or generalisable ordering of outcomes from "best" to "worst" for the PCs, but then incorrectly infer that, as a result, there is no difference between "near success", "success with complications", etc. This is not so. Actual play examples have been given upthread that illustrate that this is not so. In any given moment of resolution, a range of different narrations for failure may be available to the GM (in the sense that all would fit with the established fiction, maintain the impetus of play, etc) - some may be success with complications (yes, the feather is an angel feather, but is also cursed); some may be partial success (you have reached the Abor-Alz, but the waterhole you were heading for is fouled); some may be total failure (the mace is not in the tower where you were hoping to find it; instead, you find black arrows apparently crafted by your brother). The GM's job is to choose between these. Making good choices is part of the skill of GMing this sort of game. (Somewhat comparably to the Gygaxian GM needing the skill of good dungeon design.) One of the things the GM will be having regard to is the way in which the outcome is success, or near-success (which is a form of less-than-total failure), or total failure - each of which has different potential consequences for the impetus of play. Another will be the degree of complication, and/or of escalation, introduced by an outcome - which matters to pacing, potentially to resource depletion, etc. Further relevant factors will be things like how many PCs a given outcome involves, connections between outcomes and player flags, etc. The third thing you raise is at what point the stakes are set. On that matter, I'll speak to Burning Wheel. The rulebooks say that stakes are set before the dice are rolled. In his GMing advice (the Adventure Burner), Luke Crane notes that, at his table, he tends to ignore this rule and to leave the stakes implicit. He goes on to say that this works because he plays with people who know him and trust him, and so can appreciate the stakes implicit in the ingame situation. He goes on to encourage his reader to follow the written rules. When I GM my BW game, it is for people whom I've known for over 20 years and who have all been RPGing with me as GM for most of that time. I therefore generally (not always) leave the stakes implicit. If I was GMing for comparative strangers I'd probably take a different approach. You express concerns about GM antagonism/fairness. That's not really the relevant notion - or rather, the rulebook will answer it. In BW, for instance, the GM should basically [I]always[/I] be antagonistic, in the sense of pushing the players hard in relation to their PCs and their flags. But the GM should also always be maintaining the momentum of play, which means that dead-ends or arbitrary shut-downs are not in the repertoire. Rather than antagonism or fairness, the issues that confront GMs in this sort of system tend to be managing backstory in a consistent way - given that a lot of fiction, from the existence of the dark elf who fouls the waterhole, to the existence of the curse on the feather, to the absence of the mace but the presence of brother-manufactured black arrows in the tower, is being authored in the spot - and avoiding outcomes that a boring, unmotivating to the players, or shut-downs. (These games also tend to have mechanical solutions to some of these problems. For instance, they tend to have more flexible and generalisable action-resolution mechanics - not unlike 4e's skill challenges - so that the propsect of any situation being a shut-down is reduced, because the players have highly flexible mechanical tools to try and impact the fiction.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Monte Cook On Fumble Mechanics
Top