Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3822128" data-attributes="member: 42582">Howandwhy99, thanks for your replies.Am I right in characterising your approach to play this way?You don't object to metagame thinking in character build and world-design - in short, to the setting up of the campaign - and thus:*Players are allowed to build PCs of the sort they feel like playing; *Players are allowed to co-operate in character build to make sure there are no paladin/assassing problems; *You seem to be in favour of the 4e approach to monster build, which strips away the simulationist aspects of 3E; *The GM knowing what sorts of things the players are looking for, such as kobolds, is allowed to put them into the gameworld. You object very strongly to metagame thinking in action resolution, and thus:*Once the campaign actually starts, all changes occur only as the result of the PC's actions; *These are modelled by a (more-or-less) simulationist ruleset; *If and when the mechanics give out, action resolution is handled by the GM's common sense. I'm not meaning any of the above to be pejorative, just an attempt at clear description. Hoping that it's not in error, I want to respond to it.I agree wholeheartedly with the first bit about character build and world design. So it seems to be on the topic of action resolution that we have different notions of what is fun in roleplaying and what contributes to roleplaying.I don't disagree about the relationship between changes and the PC's actions. I think this is what you mean by "player-driven" as opposed to "GM-driven" play, and I agree. (Though a query: suppose the GM has determined that, in the world itself, a certain sequence of events will unfold subject to PC intervention - I use that quite commonly in my GMing, as opposed to a static world - is that consistent with your "player-driven" play? Your reference to "NPC plans" suggests that it is.)So I think what we are disagreeing over is the simulationist character of the ruleset - I don't object to metagame action resolution mechanics which enable the PCs to "game the system" (as you put it) in order to produce the outcome for their PCs that they, as players, desire. I currently GM Rolemaster - it doesn't have Fate Points, but there are features of the mechanics (optimisation of attack vs parry, adrenal move use etc) which are important for the player's to master if their PCs are to succeed, and which I think you would find objectionable as "breaking in-character play." When I start a new campaign as GM, it will probably be in HARP, which has Fate Point rules. (I wrote something for <a href="http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2007/mar/fatepointdevelopment.html" target="_blank">the Guild Companion</a> explaining how I would integrate the Fate Point rules more tightly with character build and reward mechanics.)And I admit that I do have a preference for minimising (not excluding, which is impossible) the role of GM common sense. I actually think this is a very difficult issue. If the players and the GM are not all on the same page as to what the priorities in play are, and what the in-game logic of the gameworld is, this can lead to tears and ruptured friendships. My own opinion is AD&D's placing of the GM at the centre in this way is what contributes to AD&D's reputation for producing abusive GMs.My main concern about 4e is that, like 3E, it will assume a default metagame priority of "overcoming challenges" and therefore be difficult to adapt to other flavours of fantasy RPGing (though the social and environmental challenge mechanics may mitigate this to an extent). But I don't expect to be worried by its (likely) increased emphasis on the metagame in action resolution.I've never played a MMORPG. But most of my players do, and they certainly think that tabletop RPGing has things to offer that a MMORPG does not - mostly the capacity to develop plots and explore themes.I think there is a difference between the sort of illusionism/railroading that (AFAICT - I didn't actually play very much of it) characterises 2nd ed AD&D, and a game in which the players are able to determine certain outcomes in the gameworld other than via simulationist mechanics (eg by spending Fate Points).I'm happy with your characterisation of Fate Points as giving the players a small part of the GMing role. I don't think that this has to lead to the sort of conflict you describe, however, provided that the effects of Fate Points and the conditions for their use are fairly well described.It seems to me that, in the sort of play you are describing, the players have to have the utmost faith that (i) their GM will create a world that unfolds in the way they want it to, and (ii) that the GM's common sense, when it comes into play (as it is likely to quite often) will accord with theirs. As I noted above, the failure of either of these conditions will lead to conflict.Assuming that these two conditions are satisfied, the sort of play you are describing seems aimed at satisfying those who want character/world immersion. The sort of play I'm describing seems better suited either for pure game players (if you look at the intricate mechanics that I've described wrt RM) or those who want to explore particular plots or themes (Fate Points linked to player-defined PC goals help here). I think this last sort of play is quite different from an MMORPG.EDIT: I read your other thread (about the "Game Police"). As I've said in my earlier post, I doubt that 4e will support your desired playstyle - I think it will move even further away from it than 3E already has, both because it will have Action Points as a core mechanic, and the action resolution rules will themselves be very complex (thus making rules mastery by the players an important part of the game).</blockquote>

Verification