Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Players choose what their PCs do . . .
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: 7628617" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I don't think it sounds bad! Not quite my cup of tea, but that's a different less interesting matter.</p><p></p><p>A little while ago now I started a thread which tooks as its premise that there is a key puzzle-solving/learning-what-the-GM-is-thinking aspect in the sort of approach to fiction-creation you are (if I've understood you) describing here. I think this sort of play, which seems very prevalent, is under-analysed.</p><p></p><p>I think another avenue of exploration is around <em>what sorts of descriptions are up for grabs when checks are made</em> - who gets to decide what they are, and how do we choose between them? Many traditional combat systems offer fairly precise and sometimes fairly rigid answers to these questions, which I think may be what you're getting at here.</p><p></p><p>I think the issue of "invalidation", or as I sometimes put it in the affirmative <em>honouring player successes in checks</em> is a very interesting phenomenon. In my experience in quite few systems it is this principle which helps establish wider/richer descriptions, extrapolating from players' thinner descriptions plus (sometimes quite amorphous) hopes/expectations.</p><p></p><p>When that principle isn't applied (and I think there are some well-established approaches to some systems - at least D&D and CoC that I'm familiar with - where it often isn't applied) then players can't establish much beyond those thin descriptions.</p><p></p><p>When that principle is applied I think it's interesting to consider how we should think about who is driving the wider descriptions - eg even if the GM is doing it in a formal sense where are they getting their material from, what constraints do they apply to themselves, etc.</p><p></p><p>EDIT to add a reply to this:</p><p>I was leaving it open, though in the second of the middle paras (the safe example) I was imagining that we are using a check to establish the success of an action.</p><p></p><p>For instance, here is one way to set up a resolution system: player posits a description; GM counter-posits a description; a check is made; on a success player's posit is true in the fiction, on a fail the GM's is. (I'm taking it for granted that posited descriptions are genre and context appropriate; if that's up for grabs at the table then it will need to be sorted out before resolution can proceed.)</p><p></p><p>Burning Wheel played canonically works like this. Much of AD&D, played canonically, differs from this (some combat-ish elements might be partial exceptions if looked at in the right way).</p><p></p><p>So I think the relationship between <em>resolution </em>and <em>establishing true descriptions of PC actions</em> can be quite variable across actual and conceivable systems. And there are other things besides <em>resolution</em> that this is true of: eg what is the relationship between <em>stuff the GM writes down in advance of play</em> and <em>establishing true descriptions of PC actions</em>. In Cortex+ Heroic, not a lot; in classic AD&D, the relationship can be very tight (again with some combat-ish elements perhaps being exceptions); in PbtA the relationship is different again; etc.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7628617, member: 42582"] I don't think it sounds bad! Not quite my cup of tea, but that's a different less interesting matter. A little while ago now I started a thread which tooks as its premise that there is a key puzzle-solving/learning-what-the-GM-is-thinking aspect in the sort of approach to fiction-creation you are (if I've understood you) describing here. I think this sort of play, which seems very prevalent, is under-analysed. I think another avenue of exploration is around [I]what sorts of descriptions are up for grabs when checks are made[/I] - who gets to decide what they are, and how do we choose between them? Many traditional combat systems offer fairly precise and sometimes fairly rigid answers to these questions, which I think may be what you're getting at here. I think the issue of "invalidation", or as I sometimes put it in the affirmative [I]honouring player successes in checks[/I] is a very interesting phenomenon. In my experience in quite few systems it is this principle which helps establish wider/richer descriptions, extrapolating from players' thinner descriptions plus (sometimes quite amorphous) hopes/expectations. When that principle isn't applied (and I think there are some well-established approaches to some systems - at least D&D and CoC that I'm familiar with - where it often isn't applied) then players can't establish much beyond those thin descriptions. When that principle is applied I think it's interesting to consider how we should think about who is driving the wider descriptions - eg even if the GM is doing it in a formal sense where are they getting their material from, what constraints do they apply to themselves, etc. EDIT to add a reply to this: I was leaving it open, though in the second of the middle paras (the safe example) I was imagining that we are using a check to establish the success of an action. For instance, here is one way to set up a resolution system: player posits a description; GM counter-posits a description; a check is made; on a success player's posit is true in the fiction, on a fail the GM's is. (I'm taking it for granted that posited descriptions are genre and context appropriate; if that's up for grabs at the table then it will need to be sorted out before resolution can proceed.) Burning Wheel played canonically works like this. Much of AD&D, played canonically, differs from this (some combat-ish elements might be partial exceptions if looked at in the right way). So I think the relationship between [I]resolution [/I]and [I]establishing true descriptions of PC actions[/I] can be quite variable across actual and conceivable systems. And there are other things besides [I]resolution[/I] that this is true of: eg what is the relationship between [I]stuff the GM writes down in advance of play[/I] and [I]establishing true descriptions of PC actions[/I]. In Cortex+ Heroic, not a lot; in classic AD&D, the relationship can be very tight (again with some combat-ish elements perhaps being exceptions); in PbtA the relationship is different again; etc. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Players choose what their PCs do . . .
Top