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
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="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7628777" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>That is, indeed, one way it happens, and one of the ways [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] noted in his OP. There are other ways, though, like the other one in the OP, that you've dismissed as a falsehood. Given that it exists in a number of games, and can exist in even more, you should reconsider whether or not you've grasped the intent of the OP and whether or not you're the one engaged in a falsehood.</p><p></p><p>As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] noted, Burning Wheel's core loop is opposing truth statements about the world, on the player's the other the GM's, which the dice then decide which occurs. If the GM wins, the GM get to both narrate their outcome AND any actions the PC takes to realize that outcome. If the player wins, they get to do the same. This fundamentally disagrees with your universal assertion. "There are other ways than these," to paraphrase.</p><p></p><p>I like Blades in the Dark, which does a similar thing. The player nominates both the action and the outcome -- what they want to happen and how they're doing it. The GM then sets the risk of that action (how bad will the consequences of a failure be) and the effect of that action (how much will it go towards achieving the player's goal). There's a negotiation that can occur, here, and the player has a number of PC resources to bring to bear to improve odds, but, when the dice fly, a success means the player gets their goal or gains ground towards it. On a failure, the GM uses the risk setting to level consequences. There's also a more likely middle ground where the player partially succeeds and the GM gets to level a partial complication. Many games that feature the player having the ability to set both the action and what a success looks like have partial success mechanics.</p><p></p><p>So, the intent of the OP, if I divine it correctly, is to get people to step back and think about which method they use, which they might prefer, and why that may be so. I know that doing so helped me better understand what it is both I and my players get out of games, and has made me more successful at GMing in either style (because I don't fight the system, which is a primary cause of system frustration for people). I, until rather recently, thought as you did. Turns out I was wrong. Not that play is wrong, but that it's the only way play occurs. It's hard to grasp games that place the authorities in different places if you've come from a D&D only background. It's a different way of thinking about games entirely -- which may or may not appeal to you and that's just fine.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7628777, member: 16814"] That is, indeed, one way it happens, and one of the ways [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] noted in his OP. There are other ways, though, like the other one in the OP, that you've dismissed as a falsehood. Given that it exists in a number of games, and can exist in even more, you should reconsider whether or not you've grasped the intent of the OP and whether or not you're the one engaged in a falsehood. As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] noted, Burning Wheel's core loop is opposing truth statements about the world, on the player's the other the GM's, which the dice then decide which occurs. If the GM wins, the GM get to both narrate their outcome AND any actions the PC takes to realize that outcome. If the player wins, they get to do the same. This fundamentally disagrees with your universal assertion. "There are other ways than these," to paraphrase. I like Blades in the Dark, which does a similar thing. The player nominates both the action and the outcome -- what they want to happen and how they're doing it. The GM then sets the risk of that action (how bad will the consequences of a failure be) and the effect of that action (how much will it go towards achieving the player's goal). There's a negotiation that can occur, here, and the player has a number of PC resources to bring to bear to improve odds, but, when the dice fly, a success means the player gets their goal or gains ground towards it. On a failure, the GM uses the risk setting to level consequences. There's also a more likely middle ground where the player partially succeeds and the GM gets to level a partial complication. Many games that feature the player having the ability to set both the action and what a success looks like have partial success mechanics. So, the intent of the OP, if I divine it correctly, is to get people to step back and think about which method they use, which they might prefer, and why that may be so. I know that doing so helped me better understand what it is both I and my players get out of games, and has made me more successful at GMing in either style (because I don't fight the system, which is a primary cause of system frustration for people). I, until rather recently, thought as you did. Turns out I was wrong. Not that play is wrong, but that it's the only way play occurs. It's hard to grasp games that place the authorities in different places if you've come from a D&D only background. It's a different way of thinking about games entirely -- which may or may not appeal to you and that's just fine. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Players choose what their PCs do . . .
Top