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: 7630533" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Re-read the example. You're interpolating things (eg "day-dreaming") that aren't there. From Apocalypse World, 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. . . . “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>Of course the GM's descriptions <em>aren't the same as what the player stated</em>. (1) No one declares an action from the point of view of failing it. (2) If the GM could never do anything but restate what the player said, it would be a boring and somewhat repetitive game.</p><p></p><p>But the GM is not having the character perform a different action. The GM is just providing additional descriptions of the player's stated action of <em>reading the situation to identify her best escape route</em>.</p><p></p><p>If you tell the player <em>You're paralysed. I'll tell you when you can act again.</em> or <em>You're charmed. You think Orcus is your best friend</em> you're also depriving the player of a moment in which s/he can really make his/her vision of the character come to life.</p><p></p><p>The fact that the infiction reason for the PC doing such-and-such is ensorcellment has no bearing on the real-world reality that you are pointing to.</p><p></p><p>Whether <em>roleplaying</em> = <em>make <u>my</u> vision of the character come alive</em> is a further question. This is the first post where you've suggested that particular definition. It obviously differs from other definitions that have been put forward, such as <em>portraying a particular character in an imagined world</em> by imposing an authorship constraint on what counts as roleplaying.</p><p></p><p>Whether the GM, when s/he tells you what has changed about your PC's mental states, is imagining <em>a winking maiden</em> or <em>a might sorcerer</em> or <em>Ovinomancer's Bob</em> or <em>the Orcus of my earlier paragraph</em> makes no difference to whether or not you, as a player carrying out the GM's directions, are playing a role. Maybe you are. Maybe you aren't. That depends on what it means to <em>play a role</em>. But whatever <em>playing a role</em> means, it is not affected by what is happening in the imagination of the GM when s/he tells you what your player should do now.</p><p></p><p>For instance, if <em>playing a role</em> includes the authorship constraint you have stated, whether or not that constraint is honoured doesn't change because the GM imagines magical pixies rather than subtle maidens when s/he tells you that your PC's heart is softened.</p><p></p><p>I don't think this refutes anything [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] said. Rather, it confirms it!</p><p></p><p>First, but somewhat tangentially, when the maiden winks at you and melts your heart, there is an ingame reason why your heart is melted - namely, the maiden's wink!</p><p></p><p>Second, the idea that you <em>should</em> have control over your PC <em>except</em> when an ingame magical enchantment effect occurs, is just reiterating the D&D categories that Ovinomancer said you were not seeing beyond. It's not stating a reason. It implies, for instance, that a fantasy game in which players spend about half the time playing their PCs as charmed is less "invasive" than a modern-day game in which players, for a few minutes each session, find the GM adding descriptions to what their players do, triggered by failed checks and with the purpose of reflecting things going wrong. But what is there about the logic of RPGing that explains this classification? Nothing that I can see. The activity is neutral vis-a-vis the fiction it engages with.</p><p></p><p>If the half-the-session charmed game is OK and fun, and a fine example of RPGing, then it doesn't make any sense for it suddenly to become an example of <em>not</em>-RPGing because we relabel all the fiction (so the charms become eg cute winks and charming voices). That would be a change in aesthetic, but not a fundamental change in the activity.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7630533, member: 42582"] Re-read the example. You're interpolating things (eg "day-dreaming") that aren't there. From Apocalypse World, 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] Of course the GM's descriptions [I]aren't the same as what the player stated[/I]. (1) No one declares an action from the point of view of failing it. (2) If the GM could never do anything but restate what the player said, it would be a boring and somewhat repetitive game. But the GM is not having the character perform a different action. The GM is just providing additional descriptions of the player's stated action of [I]reading the situation to identify her best escape route[/I]. If you tell the player [I]You're paralysed. I'll tell you when you can act again.[/I] or [I]You're charmed. You think Orcus is your best friend[/I] you're also depriving the player of a moment in which s/he can really make his/her vision of the character come to life. The fact that the infiction reason for the PC doing such-and-such is ensorcellment has no bearing on the real-world reality that you are pointing to. Whether [I]roleplaying[/I] = [I]make [U]my[/U] vision of the character come alive[/I] is a further question. This is the first post where you've suggested that particular definition. It obviously differs from other definitions that have been put forward, such as [I]portraying a particular character in an imagined world[/I] by imposing an authorship constraint on what counts as roleplaying. Whether the GM, when s/he tells you what has changed about your PC's mental states, is imagining [I]a winking maiden[/I] or [I]a might sorcerer[/I] or [I]Ovinomancer's Bob[/I] or [I]the Orcus of my earlier paragraph[/I] makes no difference to whether or not you, as a player carrying out the GM's directions, are playing a role. Maybe you are. Maybe you aren't. That depends on what it means to [I]play a role[/I]. But whatever [I]playing a role[/I] means, it is not affected by what is happening in the imagination of the GM when s/he tells you what your player should do now. For instance, if [I]playing a role[/I] includes the authorship constraint you have stated, whether or not that constraint is honoured doesn't change because the GM imagines magical pixies rather than subtle maidens when s/he tells you that your PC's heart is softened. I don't think this refutes anything [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] said. Rather, it confirms it! First, but somewhat tangentially, when the maiden winks at you and melts your heart, there is an ingame reason why your heart is melted - namely, the maiden's wink! Second, the idea that you [I]should[/I] have control over your PC [I]except[/I] when an ingame magical enchantment effect occurs, is just reiterating the D&D categories that Ovinomancer said you were not seeing beyond. It's not stating a reason. It implies, for instance, that a fantasy game in which players spend about half the time playing their PCs as charmed is less "invasive" than a modern-day game in which players, for a few minutes each session, find the GM adding descriptions to what their players do, triggered by failed checks and with the purpose of reflecting things going wrong. But what is there about the logic of RPGing that explains this classification? Nothing that I can see. The activity is neutral vis-a-vis the fiction it engages with. If the half-the-session charmed game is OK and fun, and a fine example of RPGing, then it doesn't make any sense for it suddenly to become an example of [I]not[/I]-RPGing because we relabel all the fiction (so the charms become eg cute winks and charming voices). That would be a change in aesthetic, but not a fundamental change in the activity. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Players choose what their PCs do . . .
Top