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: 7634359" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I can see why you say this. But for me, this brings us back to [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s remarks:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p>The absence of choice in the example I provided occurred at the point of the killing. At that point, thie player learns - without having any say over it - that his PC is a killer. At that point, playing the character with integrity generates the crisis. There were subsequent events, too, that played on the crisis. That's part of the GM's job (in my view) - once the pressure point is clear, the GM needs to work it, not relax it, so that the player isn't spared the consequence of what has happened. This isn't quite <em>GM decides</em>, but it's a definite demand on the GM that puts the GM in a very different role from (say) the impartial GMing of Gygaxian D&D, or the most common approach to Classic Traveller.</p><p></p><p>The example of play invovling Nighcrawler that I posted upthread is somewhat similar in these respects. Events unfold which are not fully under the player's control (due to the use of action resolution mechanics). And as a result, the player, playing the character with integrity, finds that the character is changed. (In that case, Nightcrawler discovers that he is not as romantic and perhaps not as devout as everyone, including the player, thought.)</p><p></p><p>I appreciate that this does not unfold the same way - in terms of the interplay of choice and mechanics - as what you've had in mind in your posts. I think it's also very different from the example of choosing chastity or Excalibur. In that example - as it has been presented - there is no moment of crisis. There is nothing that has happened to the character that forces a reconsideration of who s/he is.</p><p></p><p>Here is also another angle on it. As presented, the Excalibur choice can come down to mere expedience - and has been framed as that by some posters: is the short-term gain of the Excalibur power-up worth the long-term loss of (say) fellowship with members of the knightly order, or the king's respect, or whatever else is forfeited along with the chastity.</p><p></p><p>Whereas in the sorts of examples I am putting forward, expedience is not a consideration. The player is forced to choose a way forward for the character, and is not guaranteed to be able to succeed in the way chosen.</p><p></p><p>RM is in many ways a D&D variant. But it has a few points that differentiate it from straightforward D&D of the era. The possibility of non-fatal victory in combat is one; aspirations towards a non-combat resolution system is another. The latter rests on a skill system which has - as a side-effect - the generation of PCs who are far richer in detail and hence implicit characterisation than an AD&D PC.</p><p></p><p>There are also some features of the actual resolution system which - while there is nothing like "fate points" - allows a player to decide in what sorts of ways his/her PC tries hard to succeed and what risks s/he takes, both when fighting and when casting spells.</p><p></p><p>So while it's easy to bundle RM into the pile of late-70s/early-80s ultra-sim games, it has these features that make it a distinctive vehicle for character-oriented RPGing.</p><p></p><p>When I look at a system like Burning Wheel, it has a lot of tech that RM doesn't: a system for metagame currency (Beliefs, and the fate points etc that are related to them); much much better action resolution (intent and task, let it ride, "fail forward"); and PC development that is much more tightly integrated with player choices. But the basic devices for putting pressure on the character, and driving change, are the same as what I've described in my examples of play.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7634359, member: 42582"] I can see why you say this. But for me, this brings us back to [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s remarks: [indent][/indent] The absence of choice in the example I provided occurred at the point of the killing. At that point, thie player learns - without having any say over it - that his PC is a killer. At that point, playing the character with integrity generates the crisis. There were subsequent events, too, that played on the crisis. That's part of the GM's job (in my view) - once the pressure point is clear, the GM needs to work it, not relax it, so that the player isn't spared the consequence of what has happened. This isn't quite [I]GM decides[/I], but it's a definite demand on the GM that puts the GM in a very different role from (say) the impartial GMing of Gygaxian D&D, or the most common approach to Classic Traveller. The example of play invovling Nighcrawler that I posted upthread is somewhat similar in these respects. Events unfold which are not fully under the player's control (due to the use of action resolution mechanics). And as a result, the player, playing the character with integrity, finds that the character is changed. (In that case, Nightcrawler discovers that he is not as romantic and perhaps not as devout as everyone, including the player, thought.) I appreciate that this does not unfold the same way - in terms of the interplay of choice and mechanics - as what you've had in mind in your posts. I think it's also very different from the example of choosing chastity or Excalibur. In that example - as it has been presented - there is no moment of crisis. There is nothing that has happened to the character that forces a reconsideration of who s/he is. Here is also another angle on it. As presented, the Excalibur choice can come down to mere expedience - and has been framed as that by some posters: is the short-term gain of the Excalibur power-up worth the long-term loss of (say) fellowship with members of the knightly order, or the king's respect, or whatever else is forfeited along with the chastity. Whereas in the sorts of examples I am putting forward, expedience is not a consideration. The player is forced to choose a way forward for the character, and is not guaranteed to be able to succeed in the way chosen. RM is in many ways a D&D variant. But it has a few points that differentiate it from straightforward D&D of the era. The possibility of non-fatal victory in combat is one; aspirations towards a non-combat resolution system is another. The latter rests on a skill system which has - as a side-effect - the generation of PCs who are far richer in detail and hence implicit characterisation than an AD&D PC. There are also some features of the actual resolution system which - while there is nothing like "fate points" - allows a player to decide in what sorts of ways his/her PC tries hard to succeed and what risks s/he takes, both when fighting and when casting spells. So while it's easy to bundle RM into the pile of late-70s/early-80s ultra-sim games, it has these features that make it a distinctive vehicle for character-oriented RPGing. When I look at a system like Burning Wheel, it has a lot of tech that RM doesn't: a system for metagame currency (Beliefs, and the fate points etc that are related to them); much much better action resolution (intent and task, let it ride, "fail forward"); and PC development that is much more tightly integrated with player choices. But the basic devices for putting pressure on the character, and driving change, are the same as what I've described in my examples of play. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Players choose what their PCs do . . .
Top