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="pemerton" data-source="post: 7629836" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Even here I think there are some interesting exceptions (or maybe they're borderline cases).</p><p></p><p>Eg the search example: suppose the GM has narrated a wall that has a ledge towards its top that is too high for the PCs to visually inspect even when they stand on tippy-toes, but that they can reach with outstretched arms. A player narrates <em>I reach up high and run my fingers along the ledge</em>. The GM replies <em>You run your fingers along the ledge and feel several bumps - one of them depresses as you brush your fingers over it - make a DEX saving throw!</em>. The player makes the roll, and succeeds. The GM continues <em>You pull your hand away as a blade springs up from inside the ledge! If you'd been slower it might have pierced your hand. </em></p><p></p><p>That might be good play or bad play, depending on everything from table preferences to larger context in which the episode is located to the dramatic tone of the GM's narration. But as far as the content of the narration is concerned, I don't think it's that remarkable from a D&D perspective.</p><p></p><p>Even though in giving this example I'm contradicting what you said, that's not my real point - I don't think you were trying to state a general law which I've now punctured with my one counterexample!</p><p></p><p>I'm more trying to point out that a lot of actual RPGing practice departs from some fairly common descriptions that are given of how it works - even in descriptions found in widely-read rulebooks! Rather than the sort of high-level normative definition-and-description advocacy that we're seeing from some posters, the idea of this thread is to try to hone in on the actualities of play and have a look at what's going on and why.</p><p></p><p>For instance, I think D&D permits the sort of example I just gave, but is less permissive to the GM when - in the fiction - what is going on is not inspecting an architectural feature but trying to understand a social situation. Is that just legacy? Does it tell us something about the game's focus?</p><p></p><p>We could compare that to the "perception" moves in Apocalypse World (p 87 of the rulebook):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">READ A SITCH</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">When you <strong>read a charged situation</strong>, roll+sharp. On a hit, you can ask the MC questions. Whenever you act on one of the MC’s answers, take +1. On a 10+, ask 3. On a 7–9, ask 1:</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">• where’s my best escape route / way in / way past?</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">• which enemy is most vulnerable to me?</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">• which enemy is the biggest threat?</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">• what should I be on the lookout for?</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">• what’s my enemy’s true position?</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">• who’s in control here?</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">READ A PERSON</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">When you <strong>read a person</strong> in a charged interaction, roll+sharp. On a 10+, hold 3. On a 7–9, hold 1. While you’re interacting with them, spend your hold to ask their player questions, 1 for 1:</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">• is your character telling the truth?</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">• what’s your character really feeling?</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">• what does your character intend to do?</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">• what does your character wish I’d do?</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">• how could I get your character to __?</p><p></p><p>There's a higher degree of symmetry here than in D&D, I think, although it's not strict symmetry. And if the player succeeds on a check, the MC (= GM, for non-AW players who are following along) has less licence, I think, than in the D&D case, to describe the PC's actions (say in terms of moving his/her fingers, feeling things with them, pulling away just in time).</p><p></p><p>Whereas on a <em>failed</em> check (= 6 or less, for non-AW players), the MC has much closer to carte blanche. Here's an example from the AW rulebook (pp 155-56):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">“I <strong>read the situation</strong>. What’s my best escape route?” She rolls+sharp and . . . misses. “Oh no,” she says.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">I can make as hard and direct a move as I like. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">“You’re looking out your (barred, 4th-story) window as though it were an escape route,” I say, “and they don’t chop your door all the way down, just through the top hinge, and then they lean on it to make a 6-inch space. The door’s creaking and snapping at the bottom hinge. And they put a grenade through like this—” I hold up my fist for the grenade and slap it with my other hand, like whacking a croquet ball.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">“I dive for—”</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Sorry, I’m still making my hard move. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">“Nope. They cooked it off and it goes off practically at your feet. Let’s see … 4-harm area messy, a grenade. You have armor?”</p><p></p><p>I think a lot of D&D players would find this goes too far - the MC establishes <em>what it is that the PC is looking at</em> (her window), <em>what she's thinking</em> (that it might be an escape route), and then blocks an attempt to declare a dive for cover (which in D&D might be a saving throw if the action economy doesn't permit doing it as a DEX/Acro check or similar).</p><p></p><p>Not that you need to be told, but just to make it clear to readers of this post: this contrast between D&D and AW is an attempt to illustrate different ways in which true descriptions of PC actions can be established in RPGs.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7629836, member: 42582"] Even here I think there are some interesting exceptions (or maybe they're borderline cases). Eg the search example: suppose the GM has narrated a wall that has a ledge towards its top that is too high for the PCs to visually inspect even when they stand on tippy-toes, but that they can reach with outstretched arms. A player narrates [I]I reach up high and run my fingers along the ledge[/I]. The GM replies [I]You run your fingers along the ledge and feel several bumps - one of them depresses as you brush your fingers over it - make a DEX saving throw![/I]. The player makes the roll, and succeeds. The GM continues [I]You pull your hand away as a blade springs up from inside the ledge! If you'd been slower it might have pierced your hand. [/I] That might be good play or bad play, depending on everything from table preferences to larger context in which the episode is located to the dramatic tone of the GM's narration. But as far as the content of the narration is concerned, I don't think it's that remarkable from a D&D perspective. Even though in giving this example I'm contradicting what you said, that's not my real point - I don't think you were trying to state a general law which I've now punctured with my one counterexample! I'm more trying to point out that a lot of actual RPGing practice departs from some fairly common descriptions that are given of how it works - even in descriptions found in widely-read rulebooks! Rather than the sort of high-level normative definition-and-description advocacy that we're seeing from some posters, the idea of this thread is to try to hone in on the actualities of play and have a look at what's going on and why. For instance, I think D&D permits the sort of example I just gave, but is less permissive to the GM when - in the fiction - what is going on is not inspecting an architectural feature but trying to understand a social situation. Is that just legacy? Does it tell us something about the game's focus? We could compare that to the "perception" moves in Apocalypse World (p 87 of the rulebook): [indent]READ A SITCH When you [B]read a charged situation[/B], roll+sharp. On a hit, you can ask the MC questions. Whenever you act on one of the MC’s answers, take +1. On a 10+, ask 3. On a 7–9, ask 1: • where’s my best escape route / way in / way past? • which enemy is most vulnerable to me? • which enemy is the biggest threat? • what should I be on the lookout for? • what’s my enemy’s true position? • who’s in control here? READ A PERSON When you [B]read a person[/B] in a charged interaction, roll+sharp. On a 10+, hold 3. On a 7–9, hold 1. While you’re interacting with them, spend your hold to ask their player questions, 1 for 1: • is your character telling the truth? • what’s your character really feeling? • what does your character intend to do? • what does your character wish I’d do? • how could I get your character to __?[/indent] There's a higher degree of symmetry here than in D&D, I think, although it's not strict symmetry. And if the player succeeds on a check, the MC (= GM, for non-AW players who are following along) has less licence, I think, than in the D&D case, to describe the PC's actions (say in terms of moving his/her fingers, feeling things with them, pulling away just in time). Whereas on a [I]failed[/I] check (= 6 or less, for non-AW players), the MC has much closer to carte blanche. Here's an example from the AW rulebook (pp 155-56): [indent]“I [B]read the situation[/B]. What’s my best escape route?” She rolls+sharp and . . . misses. “Oh no,” she says. I can make as hard and direct a move as I like. . . . “You’re looking out your (barred, 4th-story) window as though it were an escape route,” I say, “and they don’t chop your door all the way down, just through the top hinge, and then they lean on it to make a 6-inch space. The door’s creaking and snapping at the bottom hinge. And they put a grenade through like this—” I hold up my fist for the grenade and slap it with my other hand, like whacking a croquet ball. “I dive for—” Sorry, I’m still making my hard move. . . . “Nope. They cooked it off and it goes off practically at your feet. Let’s see … 4-harm area messy, a grenade. You have armor?”[/indent] I think a lot of D&D players would find this goes too far - the MC establishes [I]what it is that the PC is looking at[/I] (her window), [I]what she's thinking[/I] (that it might be an escape route), and then blocks an attempt to declare a dive for cover (which in D&D might be a saving throw if the action economy doesn't permit doing it as a DEX/Acro check or similar). Not that you need to be told, but just to make it clear to readers of this post: this contrast between D&D and AW is an attempt to illustrate different ways in which true descriptions of PC actions can be established in RPGs. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Players choose what their PCs do . . .
Top