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
Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay
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: 8005332" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I think the following, on p 2 of the Basic PDF, is relevant.:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong>Together</strong>, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if <strong>everyone</strong> had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.</p><p></p><p>I've bolded a couple of words that I think are especially salient. It is <em>everyone together </em>who create a memorable and exciting story. It seems to me that that is highly relevant to a GM wondering what decision to make about what is and is not possible in relation to action resolution.</p><p></p><p>I further think that a GM who never permits a CHA check at any moment of crisis or confrontation, because s/he has always already pre-decided how an NPC might react, is not playing the game in the spirit that the Basic PDF presents.</p><p></p><p>To be honest I'm suprised that it's controversial to say these things. In AD&D it is well-known that there are better and worse ways to use the discretions that system confers on a GM. Eg there are better and worse approaches to dungeon design, better and worse ways to adjudicate action declarations, better and worse ways to award XP, etc. This is why we have notions like "killer dungeon" and "Monty Haul GM". It's true that both boundaries and particular examples might be controversial from time-to-time, but the general idea of standards of skill and quality is not disputed as far as I know.</p><p></p><p>I can't comment on 3E as I don't know it well enough, but 4e clearly establishes standards for better or worse GMing. The idea that it is not possible to apply any sort of standards or critical analysis to 5e GMing strikes me as very odd.</p><p></p><p>I'm not sure what you think the force of the bolded <em>can </em>is here. Maybe there's some GM somewhere who makes those decisions based on a coin-toss. I don't think anyone would advocate that as good GMing, thoiugh. In this thread I'm not asserting that any rule was broken. I'm asserting that the system has ways to resolve the sort of action described in the OP, and that gameplay is likely to be better - more fun, more dynamic, with more player satisfaction - if those resolution mechanics are used.</p><p></p><p>As far as this particular case, given that - per the OP - the upshot was one player apologising to the GM for "ruining the campaign." I'm going to conjecture that everyone did <em>not </em>have a good time creating an exciting and memorable story.</p><p></p><p>I am posting about what makes for better or worse GMing.</p><p></p><p>In this context I don't see any evidence for "bad faith" play - as I already posted upthread, if RPGing was full of people who turn up so they can flip over the table, that would be a sign of something pretty sad about the hobby. To me it seems like a player was frustrated and/or bored with the unfolding situation - perhaps in part because the fiction was not moving forward in a way that was interesting to him (? I think I saw that pronoun used). The player took a step to try and move things forward - "you're crazy and don't deserve leadership here" - which by all accounts of this module seems to be true, and uncontroversially true. The GM then escalated it to violence by having the NPC call for the guards, who turned up and sought to arrest the PCs.</p><p></p><p>I think this is the decision point that invites inquiry as to whether the GM made the best decision that was available. Reiterating that the GM didn't break any rule - as [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] and [USER=23751]@Maxperson[/USER] are doing - doesn't seem to me to take that inquiry very far forward. Given that a player ended up apologising for "ruining the campaign", I think it's fair to infer that the ensuing episode of play was not experienced as satisfactory. I don't think that dissatisfaction is going to be resolved by just reiterating that the rules give a lot of discretion to the GM.</p><p></p><p>And what you said didn't seem to add anything to what I had already posted in the thread. You quoted me saying "the GM is not - as best I can tell - expected to make that decision arbitrarily, or without having regard to the rest of the rules which (among other things) tell us what ability scores represent and what ability checks are for. . . . I don't see that it is good GMing to decide that a task is impossible when there is no reason in genre or logic for it to be so, and when - as appeared to happen in this case - it will create a less-than-satsifactory experience to so decide." Which bit of that do you disagree with? Clearly not the stuff on the right of the ellipsis, given that you have simply gone on to repeat it. The stuff on the left side? You think the GM is <em>not</em> meant to have regard to the rest of the rules, including what ability scores represent, in making decisions about whether or not a check should be called for?</p><p></p><p>This is the sort of example I regard as compleltey unhelpful to discussion. Because it is not an example from actual play. It is not an example of an actual moment of conflict in an ongoing game where the players sincerely declare actions for their PCs.</p><p></p><p>The last time something like what you describe <em>actually came up in play for me</em>, the situation was that the PCs (in a Traveller game) had taken a NPC and her ship and crew captive. The situation was tense and the PCs' control of it not total. The agreement reached was to gamble for ownership of the NPC's ship - the noble PC (a skilled gambler) against the ship owner (also a gambler). The player wond the dice-off, which is to say that the PC won the game, and title to the ship was handed over. The NPC now serves as a senior member of the crew on her former ship, with some other NPCs who were crew members under her command as well as other PCs.</p><p></p><p>Action resolution is how a game goes forward.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8005332, member: 42582"] I think the following, on p 2 of the Basic PDF, is relevant.: [indent][B]Together[/B], the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if [B]everyone[/B] had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.[/indent] I've bolded a couple of words that I think are especially salient. It is [I]everyone together [/I]who create a memorable and exciting story. It seems to me that that is highly relevant to a GM wondering what decision to make about what is and is not possible in relation to action resolution. I further think that a GM who never permits a CHA check at any moment of crisis or confrontation, because s/he has always already pre-decided how an NPC might react, is not playing the game in the spirit that the Basic PDF presents. To be honest I'm suprised that it's controversial to say these things. In AD&D it is well-known that there are better and worse ways to use the discretions that system confers on a GM. Eg there are better and worse approaches to dungeon design, better and worse ways to adjudicate action declarations, better and worse ways to award XP, etc. This is why we have notions like "killer dungeon" and "Monty Haul GM". It's true that both boundaries and particular examples might be controversial from time-to-time, but the general idea of standards of skill and quality is not disputed as far as I know. I can't comment on 3E as I don't know it well enough, but 4e clearly establishes standards for better or worse GMing. The idea that it is not possible to apply any sort of standards or critical analysis to 5e GMing strikes me as very odd. I'm not sure what you think the force of the bolded [I]can [/I]is here. Maybe there's some GM somewhere who makes those decisions based on a coin-toss. I don't think anyone would advocate that as good GMing, thoiugh. In this thread I'm not asserting that any rule was broken. I'm asserting that the system has ways to resolve the sort of action described in the OP, and that gameplay is likely to be better - more fun, more dynamic, with more player satisfaction - if those resolution mechanics are used. As far as this particular case, given that - per the OP - the upshot was one player apologising to the GM for "ruining the campaign." I'm going to conjecture that everyone did [I]not [/I]have a good time creating an exciting and memorable story. I am posting about what makes for better or worse GMing. In this context I don't see any evidence for "bad faith" play - as I already posted upthread, if RPGing was full of people who turn up so they can flip over the table, that would be a sign of something pretty sad about the hobby. To me it seems like a player was frustrated and/or bored with the unfolding situation - perhaps in part because the fiction was not moving forward in a way that was interesting to him (? I think I saw that pronoun used). The player took a step to try and move things forward - "you're crazy and don't deserve leadership here" - which by all accounts of this module seems to be true, and uncontroversially true. The GM then escalated it to violence by having the NPC call for the guards, who turned up and sought to arrest the PCs. I think this is the decision point that invites inquiry as to whether the GM made the best decision that was available. Reiterating that the GM didn't break any rule - as [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] and [USER=23751]@Maxperson[/USER] are doing - doesn't seem to me to take that inquiry very far forward. Given that a player ended up apologising for "ruining the campaign", I think it's fair to infer that the ensuing episode of play was not experienced as satisfactory. I don't think that dissatisfaction is going to be resolved by just reiterating that the rules give a lot of discretion to the GM. And what you said didn't seem to add anything to what I had already posted in the thread. You quoted me saying "the GM is not - as best I can tell - expected to make that decision arbitrarily, or without having regard to the rest of the rules which (among other things) tell us what ability scores represent and what ability checks are for. . . . I don't see that it is good GMing to decide that a task is impossible when there is no reason in genre or logic for it to be so, and when - as appeared to happen in this case - it will create a less-than-satsifactory experience to so decide." Which bit of that do you disagree with? Clearly not the stuff on the right of the ellipsis, given that you have simply gone on to repeat it. The stuff on the left side? You think the GM is [I]not[/I] meant to have regard to the rest of the rules, including what ability scores represent, in making decisions about whether or not a check should be called for? This is the sort of example I regard as compleltey unhelpful to discussion. Because it is not an example from actual play. It is not an example of an actual moment of conflict in an ongoing game where the players sincerely declare actions for their PCs. The last time something like what you describe [I]actually came up in play for me[/I], the situation was that the PCs (in a Traveller game) had taken a NPC and her ship and crew captive. The situation was tense and the PCs' control of it not total. The agreement reached was to gamble for ownership of the NPC's ship - the noble PC (a skilled gambler) against the ship owner (also a gambler). The player wond the dice-off, which is to say that the PC won the game, and title to the ship was handed over. The NPC now serves as a senior member of the crew on her former ship, with some other NPCs who were crew members under her command as well as other PCs. Action resolution is how a game goes forward. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay
Top