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
No Good Choices
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: 8078817" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Genre is important in RPGing, but I think the key issue here is the one that Ovinomancer has identified - ie rather than starting with "realistic" vs "artificialcontrive" let's start with <em>where did the framing come from</em>?</p><p></p><p>My general view is that <em>bad things</em> (ie things the players don't want), as a component of framing, should be a result of <em>failed checks</em>. If players succeed in their checks and yet still have the GM frame their PCs into circumstances replete with bad things then <em>what was the point of succeeding?</em></p><p></p><p>With the super-villain example, for instance, it's easy to frame <em>choose between Lois and the school bus</em> choice as the outcome of some earlier failure. And then to narrate a death (of Lois or Gwen or the school kids) as the outcome of some further failure. Conversely, if the players succeed then they save both targets, or if they succeed first time around then the villain never gets the chance to establish the hard choice in the first place.</p><p></p><p>In the portal case, it's easy to envisage narrating the situation, and resolving checks and establishing consequences, where one or more failures lead to an end-point where <em>only a friend's sacrifice</em> can close the portal. This happens in RPGing combat from time-to-time - ie a string of results leads to a situation where not all of the PCs can survive, but maybe most can if one sacrifices him-/herself - and there's no reason why it cant happen in other domains of resolution too, like dealing with demonic portals.</p><p></p><p>Where genre becomes important is, I think, in setting parameters for acceptable consequences. System also factors in here. Eg the rules in Prince Valiant say that PC death is not normally an important part of the game, and the rules for resolving injury and recovery reinforce this point, and so it is going to be hard in that system to establish a consequence, even for failure, where PC death is on the line. And it would be at odds with the genre the system aims to support to frame anything too grimly.</p><p></p><p>Contrast, say, Burning Wheel. The default genre is fairly gritty. Dying, being imprisoned or enslaved, being maimed, having family members hurt - these are all things that the system clearly puts on the table. They are reinforced by a quasi-death flag mechanic, whereby a player can send his/her last Persona (= fate/hero) point and therefore have no resource left to negate a PC death, thus signalling that s/he is "all in" with regard to what comes next. But it would be awful BW GMing to cut straight to these sorts of stakes: they should emerge "organically" out of the framing of situations and the narration of consequences, in the sort of fashion Ovinomancer describes. The maths of BW together with its system logic will produce enough failed checks to allow this to happen without the need for arbitrary contrivance on the part of the GM.</p><p></p><p>If a system is weak when it comes to producing consequences outside of combat that are independent of GM fiat, that will probably make it harder to avoid the appearance of GM-determined contrivance or even punishment.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8078817, member: 42582"] Genre is important in RPGing, but I think the key issue here is the one that Ovinomancer has identified - ie rather than starting with "realistic" vs "artificialcontrive" let's start with [I]where did the framing come from[/I]? My general view is that [I]bad things[/I] (ie things the players don't want), as a component of framing, should be a result of [I]failed checks[/I]. If players succeed in their checks and yet still have the GM frame their PCs into circumstances replete with bad things then [I]what was the point of succeeding?[/I] With the super-villain example, for instance, it's easy to frame [I]choose between Lois and the school bus[/I] choice as the outcome of some earlier failure. And then to narrate a death (of Lois or Gwen or the school kids) as the outcome of some further failure. Conversely, if the players succeed then they save both targets, or if they succeed first time around then the villain never gets the chance to establish the hard choice in the first place. In the portal case, it's easy to envisage narrating the situation, and resolving checks and establishing consequences, where one or more failures lead to an end-point where [I]only a friend's sacrifice[/I] can close the portal. This happens in RPGing combat from time-to-time - ie a string of results leads to a situation where not all of the PCs can survive, but maybe most can if one sacrifices him-/herself - and there's no reason why it cant happen in other domains of resolution too, like dealing with demonic portals. Where genre becomes important is, I think, in setting parameters for acceptable consequences. System also factors in here. Eg the rules in Prince Valiant say that PC death is not normally an important part of the game, and the rules for resolving injury and recovery reinforce this point, and so it is going to be hard in that system to establish a consequence, even for failure, where PC death is on the line. And it would be at odds with the genre the system aims to support to frame anything too grimly. Contrast, say, Burning Wheel. The default genre is fairly gritty. Dying, being imprisoned or enslaved, being maimed, having family members hurt - these are all things that the system clearly puts on the table. They are reinforced by a quasi-death flag mechanic, whereby a player can send his/her last Persona (= fate/hero) point and therefore have no resource left to negate a PC death, thus signalling that s/he is "all in" with regard to what comes next. But it would be awful BW GMing to cut straight to these sorts of stakes: they should emerge "organically" out of the framing of situations and the narration of consequences, in the sort of fashion Ovinomancer describes. The maths of BW together with its system logic will produce enough failed checks to allow this to happen without the need for arbitrary contrivance on the part of the GM. If a system is weak when it comes to producing consequences outside of combat that are independent of GM fiat, that will probably make it harder to avoid the appearance of GM-determined contrivance or even punishment. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
No Good Choices
Top