D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[pemerton]

Let me try something new. In the games where these fail forward techniques are properly implemented (which exclude all variants of D&D with siblings), the "skills" do not represent the character's innate ability to do things.

I think that 4e D&D is a variant of D&D. And "fail forward" is a key idea in 4e D&D, especially skill challenge resolution.

And Burning Wheel is a game in which "fail forward" is key an in which skills do represent a character's innate ability to do things.

So I think both the assertions I've quoted are not correct.

 

[pemerton]

That's the problem with GNS. You can't divide RPGs into simply three categories; they're far too complex that that.

GNS is about characterising play, and the suitability of RPGs for various sorts of play. Whether you think the three categories are helpful or not, I think the notion of characterising the suitability of RPGs for various sorts of play makes sense.

 

[pemerton]

magine the rune example cast in this way.
When you try to decipher some ancient script, roll +smart. On a 10+, choose what they say...

This is functionally what I see @pemerton 's runes example as doing. Its slightly different in that the PC declared intent first.

It is fundamentally different because the player declared intent first.

MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic is not a PbtA game.

 

[AlViking]

If the wished for result was contradictory to what had been established or was otherwise nonsensical.

I agree it had to be reasonable in context, but the player is obviously aware of that so they made a reasonable request. But they still stated what it would say. The GM had not decided what the runes said ahead of time and if the check had failed they would not have been what the player hoped for.

Because of a reasonable request and a successful roll the player decided what the runes were.

Real life isn’t a game with players, so it’s not player-driven.

You have no control over the direction of your life?

 

[pemerton]

This is functionally identical to the player having author stance, imo. I raised the same point in my post.

What do you mean by "author stance"? The only definition I'm familiar with comes from here, and you're obviously not using that one.

 

[pemerton]

double post

 

[pemerton]

So, you can try whatever you want, but sometimes events beyond your control complicated things?

<snip>

You get to make your own choices, but there are no guarantees.

This is not what I said. This is a trivial description of most RPGing. (Maybe all, but I'll leave that open.)

I said that, in the sort of play you described, GM decision-making may render some goals unattainable from the outset.

 

[pemerton]

I'm pretty sure I could say a lot of things about d20 games as a class. Are PbtA games so different from each other that that's not possible? And if so, what does the label signify?

As Vincent Baker has said[,

PbtA stands for “Powered by the Apocalypse.” It means games inspired by our original game Apocalypse World, and now games inspired by other PbtA games more generally. It’s a self-applied label: because it depends on a game’s inspirations, only the game’s creator can really tell you whether their game’s PbtA or not.​

 

[pemerton]

The point is that the GM deciding on the runes doesn't result in less player agency because power and agency often conflict. It's not Orwellian doublethink to say that.

If an important element of someone's RPG play is for the players (i) to gain information from the GM about the setting and situation, so that (ii) they can manipulate that information in order to achieve some game-play goal, then Marvel Heroic RP and Burning Wheel are not good systems.

If the setting and situation will be very austere and rather trope-y dungeons, then in my view classic D&D is not a bad system, although it may not be the best. (I don't have enough experience with T&T, for instance, to compare them.)

Not all RPG play has (i) and (ii) above as important elements.

Also, in my experience RPG play that does have (i) and (ii) above as important elements tends to involve quite a bit of "author" stance (in this sense), because the players need to think and choose not just as their PCs, but having regard to their knowledge that they are playing a certain sort of game with the game play structure that (i) and (ii) establish.

 

[Maxperson]

I know that’s what you said… but I took it to mean you were saying it about trad games, and implying that narrativist games work differently

I was saying that the narrativist games I’m thinking of generally don’t work differently. The player affects the fiction by declaring actions for their character.



I’m not sure. Which games do this?



When do players directly author things in the world without their character being involved, though?

I mean, I’m thinking of Stonetop and Spire and Blades in the Dark. Most instances ofthis stuff would likely be in the form of suggestion based on what’s been established (“hey, is there a spittoon in this tavern?” or similar) but even then, it’d be subject to the GM agreeing, and seems just as likely in plenty of trad play.

Do you have any games or examples in mind?

I haven't played any myself, but I've seen narrative folks here describe player authoring in ways like the party coming to a new city and one of the players announcing that there is a blacksmith there that he knows because the blacksmith is good friends with his uncle. That example would be the player authoring in a friendly blacksmith directly, not using the character to influence the game world.

And I know I've seen other examples over the years of players authoring fiction directly.