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="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8027849" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>This isn't quite right, though. In AW, the GM is waiting on the player's action and the resolution to determine what happens next -- the player constrains the GM into narrating the result of their play and the mechanics constrain how the GM can introduce new fiction. This style of play greatly constrains the GM's ability to Force outcomes, because you just can't plan the kind of play that occurs or it's immediately obvious.</p><p></p><p>In 5e, the player's action doesn't constrain the GM because the GM decides all of the fictional particulars of the action and can adjust those to the GM's thinking of how the scene should play or what fictional elements the GM has prepared but not yet introduced into play.</p><p></p><p>As an example, take the OP's situation. The player insults the Burgomaster. In AW, this would either work or would have to go to the mechanics. The player would use the Go Aggro move. The GM's narration would then be constrained by the result of the roll -- they couldn't have the Burgomaster call for the guards except on a failure or as part of a partial where they still give the player something they want. Even if the GM chose to have the Burgomaster suck it up, the situation would then resolve with the Burgomaster at a disadvantage due to getting hit/hurt/held whatever. It certainly wouldn't start with the players at the disadvantage because the odds just shifted.</p><p></p><p>In 5e, what happens is entirely up to the GM. They could try something like the above, but the resolution mechanics in 5e don't really work very well for that kind of play, so it's kludgy. Or, just as easily, you end up with the OP situation, the guards are called because the player trips across the GM's prepared responses. In the first case, the player's agency is the same as in AW, but it's entirely at the GM's whim -- they GM has to allow this vice in AW the game says that's how it works. In the second, the player didn't have agency because there was a secret established fact that prevented any outcome except the GM's prepared one (in this case, the GM that wrote the module).</p><p></p><p>These are pretty different outcomes from your oversimplification. I mean, you roll the dice in the first one but not the second should be a pretty clear indication of something different here.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I very much want you to tell my Blades players that they aren't playing their characters any more than when we play Gloomhaven (which we also do, fun game). Characters don't exist, it's only ever the players that change things. Point in fact, next time you RPG, wait for your character to do something and see what happens.</p><p></p><p>This is a common response to games that don't use atomic task resolution systems by people that like atomic resolution systems. By atomic resolution, I mean at the smallest step you resolve specific actions that are fully encapsulated. 5e is often atomic in it's resolution, especially when dealing with those elements with good rules. Take a trap. I commonly see in 5e that you have to notice the trap, which is a perception check that only serves to notice the trap. You then have to investigate the trap to see how it works. This is usually presented as a singular investigate check. Then you disarm the trap, which, again, is a singular roll that only determines success/failure at this one task. Each of these is essentially separate, or atomic, and each doesn't work to move the fiction forward except by the very narrow task it's designed to operate on. This, though, gets the label of playing through your character while a different game, that might treat a trap as an outcome of another failed check and will treat dealing with it very similarly, gets the label of meta or not as character focuses. It's a false distinction. I get you like what you like, but your issues aren't this character thing, or else you have a very bad grasp of the play involved.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, quite simply, it's "tell a story about what happens, don't just state a move name." By "make your move but never speak it's name" the intent isn't to muddy the game, but to force fiction to occur rather than bland mechanics. "Tell of future badness" is a terrible things to say in game -- "um, there's some bad stuff coming," doesn't work at all. "There's a massive crash downstairs, and you hear many heavy boots entering the building," makes things much more specific and gives the game engine those critical details that it works on. The intent here is the exact opposite of obfuscation or misdirection, it's a push to narrate evocative fiction so the players can both feel in the fiction and change the range of options.</p><p></p><p>Out of time, so I have to stop here.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8027849, member: 16814"] This isn't quite right, though. In AW, the GM is waiting on the player's action and the resolution to determine what happens next -- the player constrains the GM into narrating the result of their play and the mechanics constrain how the GM can introduce new fiction. This style of play greatly constrains the GM's ability to Force outcomes, because you just can't plan the kind of play that occurs or it's immediately obvious. In 5e, the player's action doesn't constrain the GM because the GM decides all of the fictional particulars of the action and can adjust those to the GM's thinking of how the scene should play or what fictional elements the GM has prepared but not yet introduced into play. As an example, take the OP's situation. The player insults the Burgomaster. In AW, this would either work or would have to go to the mechanics. The player would use the Go Aggro move. The GM's narration would then be constrained by the result of the roll -- they couldn't have the Burgomaster call for the guards except on a failure or as part of a partial where they still give the player something they want. Even if the GM chose to have the Burgomaster suck it up, the situation would then resolve with the Burgomaster at a disadvantage due to getting hit/hurt/held whatever. It certainly wouldn't start with the players at the disadvantage because the odds just shifted. In 5e, what happens is entirely up to the GM. They could try something like the above, but the resolution mechanics in 5e don't really work very well for that kind of play, so it's kludgy. Or, just as easily, you end up with the OP situation, the guards are called because the player trips across the GM's prepared responses. In the first case, the player's agency is the same as in AW, but it's entirely at the GM's whim -- they GM has to allow this vice in AW the game says that's how it works. In the second, the player didn't have agency because there was a secret established fact that prevented any outcome except the GM's prepared one (in this case, the GM that wrote the module). These are pretty different outcomes from your oversimplification. I mean, you roll the dice in the first one but not the second should be a pretty clear indication of something different here. I very much want you to tell my Blades players that they aren't playing their characters any more than when we play Gloomhaven (which we also do, fun game). Characters don't exist, it's only ever the players that change things. Point in fact, next time you RPG, wait for your character to do something and see what happens. This is a common response to games that don't use atomic task resolution systems by people that like atomic resolution systems. By atomic resolution, I mean at the smallest step you resolve specific actions that are fully encapsulated. 5e is often atomic in it's resolution, especially when dealing with those elements with good rules. Take a trap. I commonly see in 5e that you have to notice the trap, which is a perception check that only serves to notice the trap. You then have to investigate the trap to see how it works. This is usually presented as a singular investigate check. Then you disarm the trap, which, again, is a singular roll that only determines success/failure at this one task. Each of these is essentially separate, or atomic, and each doesn't work to move the fiction forward except by the very narrow task it's designed to operate on. This, though, gets the label of playing through your character while a different game, that might treat a trap as an outcome of another failed check and will treat dealing with it very similarly, gets the label of meta or not as character focuses. It's a false distinction. I get you like what you like, but your issues aren't this character thing, or else you have a very bad grasp of the play involved. No, quite simply, it's "tell a story about what happens, don't just state a move name." By "make your move but never speak it's name" the intent isn't to muddy the game, but to force fiction to occur rather than bland mechanics. "Tell of future badness" is a terrible things to say in game -- "um, there's some bad stuff coming," doesn't work at all. "There's a massive crash downstairs, and you hear many heavy boots entering the building," makes things much more specific and gives the game engine those critical details that it works on. The intent here is the exact opposite of obfuscation or misdirection, it's a push to narrate evocative fiction so the players can both feel in the fiction and change the range of options. Out of time, so I have to stop here. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay
Top