Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8008374" data-attributes="member: 42582">No one has said they get it because they want it.. They've said they can get what they want by succeeding on appropritae action declarations.With the ancient red dragon, has an appropriate action been declared? If the PC is a demigod threatening the dragon, perhaps yes. If the PC is the only one who can lift the curse that will blah blah blah blah blah, also perhaps yes. There are many ways interests can intersect or leverage arise. If the PCs is an anonymous and irrelevant 1st level fighter then the real question to me is why is the GM framing this scene?But in any event: if the scene is well-framed, and nevertheless the GM has decided that something can't happen regardless of player action declaration or even moreso that nothing can happen to influence the NPC whatever action is delcared, to me that seems like a railorad. The fiction that is mattering in that case is the GM's predetermination of what happens next.If the GM decides that a particular orc cannot be killed by application of the resolution mechanics - eg no matter what the players roll to hit, the GM is resolved to declare it a miss - I would call that railroading.If the GM decides that a particular forest is not passable - eg no matter what actions the PCs declare about drawing the machetes to cut through underbrush, reading the compasses, etc the GM will narrate that they have failed to make iany headway - I would be very curious as to what is going on. If the GM is trying to hard frame some other scene or context, why are the players declaring these forest-passing actions? At best something has gone badly wrong with the GM's attempt to frame the scene; at worst we have a railroad.If the GM decides that a particular NPC will always do X or always do Y - s/he cannot be influenced by a PC regardless of what actions the players declare - to me that looks like a railroad through-and-through. Whatever the players do, they can't affect the fiction except to push it along some path or other already decided by the GM. To me the whole point of a RPG is it's not a choose-your-own adventure.I don't think these are the only two options. Or maybe I don't know what you mean by telegraphin information gained during interaction - because you contrast that with playing the 20 questions game but I'm not sure what contrast you are drawing.My own preference is to have the NPC presented by reference to a genre-appropriate role or achetype - the bishop, the leader of the sorcerous cabal, the ship's captain who has brought his wife on board despite the objections of the crew, etc - and then to let the details emerge during play.I posted a number of actual play examples upthread. that show what I mean here. Eg how does Sir Lionheart - the proud and famous knight who is blocking the bridge to all comers - respond to a squire who tries to push past him? Turn him back? Squash him? Knight him so they can joust? It turns out that it's the lattermost. But we didn't know that until the scene was actually being resolved.Fully agreed. I made this exact point upthread. I don't think narration of success and narration of failure are identical in all respects, but in this case the structural parallel is obvious.And this goes right back to my comment, upthread, that I don't see why social encounters in a RPG shouldn't resemble social interactions in the source fiction.</blockquote>

Verification