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: 8028280" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>This is all metaphor.</p><p></p><p>I'm trying to have a literal discussion about how RPGing can work.</p><p></p><p>In the OP example, it is <em>the GM </em>who decides the result of the PC's insult, and also the result of calling for the guards. And those decisions appear to be constrained only by prior, unilateral decisions the GM has made about those various NPCs. The player has no opportunity here to establish fiction, or even to constrain the fiction that the GM establishes.</p><p></p><p>That may be good; it may be bad. The fact that the OP posted about the session not playing out as well as hoped suggests that, on that occasion at least, it was not perfect.</p><p></p><p>In the AW play example, it is the player who is able to force the GM to choose whether Isle does what Marie wants, or instead has her brain fried. It is the player who is able to force the GM to decide that Plover is the most dangerous of the NPCs will Mill is a non-violent child of 12. That is a higher degree of agency in respect of the shared fiction. And it is very transparent as to how and why the GM is making those decisions - ie they're forced by the rules of the game.</p><p></p><p>If, in my BW play example, the Scavenging check had succeeded then it would have been the player who authored the presence of the mace in the tower. Because it failed, it was me the GM who got to author what happened next. And I wrote in the black arrows.</p><p></p><p>We can see here different systems, which take different approaches to framing checks - BW uses "say 'yes' or roll the dice", AW uses "If you do it, you do it"; 5e D&D uses "if the GM wants to allow a check, s/he can" - and different approaches to establishing consequences - BW uses <em>intent-and-task</em>; AW uses various approaches for various moves, but the examples we've been looking at are <em>force the GM to make a decision</em>; 5e D&D uses <em>GM decides as s/he sees fit in light of previous unilateral unrevealed authorship</em>,</p><p></p><p>These different approaches produce different degrees of player agency in respect of the shared fiction. And not in some metaphorical sense - in the literal sense of <em>who gets to decide what is the case, and what happens next, in respect of the shared fiction</em>.</p><p></p><p>This is not system neutral.</p><p></p><p>There are many systems where the GM is not expected to prepare NPCs. Apocalypse World is one - see eg the actual play example where the GM makes up details about Mill as part of the process of action resolution. Classic Traveller is another - see eg the rules for resolution of Streetwise checks (Book 1, p :15 "The referee should set the throw required to obtain any item specified by the players (for example, the name of an official willing to issue licenses without hassle = 5+, the location of high quality guns at a low price = 9+).")</p><p></p><p>Your characterisation of the discovery Crown of Revel is not system neutral either. I don't know o any system in which a player can declare such an outcome. (I'm sure there are some; but I don't know them.) In Burning Wheel as in D&D a player can declare "I look in the box for the Crown of Revel". That is not a declaration of "a fact in the fiction". It is a declaration of an action, no different from "I stab the orc". What differentiates the two systems is <em>how the action is resolved.</em> In D&D, as typically played, the GM is expected to decide what follows from that action declaration, canonically at least by reference to his/her notes. In Burning Wheel, assuming that there is table consensus that the Crown <em>might</em> be in the box given the established fiction, the GM is expected either to "say 'yes'" or to set a difficulty for an appropriate check (which could be anything from Scavenging to Box-wise to Crown of Revel-wise depending on the details of the context).</p><p></p><p>I don't fully understand why you seem so hesitant to address this as a matter of action resolution: <em>I look in the box for the Crown of Revel</em>. If you won't consider that action resolution, and various ways that a system might go about resolving it, you will not be able to understand how Burning Wheel works, or even how Streetwise works in Classic Traveller.</p><p></p><p>I read the first page closely and skimmed the next five. It doesn't record anything about the procedures of play, so I can't tell for sure. What follows is conjecture based on your accounts upthread of how you approach RPGs.</p><p></p><p>My understanding from the list of Dramatis Personae is that the GM was playing the child Turlk and that a player was playing the character Joybell. I therefore conjecture that the player decided what questions Joybell asked Turlk, and that the GM made all the decisions about what Turlk said in response.</p><p></p><p>Two phrases stood out i particular on that first page: <em>we can’t glean from that where they’re from</em> and <em>we have no way of knowing where their village was</em>. My guess, reinforced by your reply to [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER], would be that this ignorance of the relevant elements of the fiction resulted from the GM making unilateral decisions about what Turlk knew and was able to convey.</p><p></p><p>If my guesses are correct then yes, this looks like RPGing-as-puzzle-solving, and I would say that the GM had almost all the agency in respect of the content of the shared fiction.</p><p></p><p>This impression is reinforced by a quick look at p 2, where another character who appears to be a NPC controlled by the GM - Jorly - provides information about the Cracked Shield tribe. This then appears to shape the next sequence of play - "We headed off to the Cracked Shields".</p><p></p><p>Reading on: while it's not clear, I gather that the GM made all the decisions about the compound and the elder called Rask. And decided to provide the players with information about The Masks. The sense of play involving solving puzzles is reinforced by this bit at the bottom of p 4: "We recognized those as Vicious Mockery and Toll the Dead -- which means psychic and necrotic damage. That confirms what Barnett told us about necrotic damage being good against them"</p><p></p><p>Then, very similar to [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER]'s hypothetical upthread, we have a description of a street which I assume was all decided by the GM. Thus it would be the GM who established that the street has no place "at all helpful for Fiona and Orryk hanging out for a couple of hours and observing the place."</p><p></p><p>On page 6 we are told about "one of the most important conversations of Joybell’s life". This all appears to be driven by the GM - eg the idea of "vendetta" which I gather is the crux of it seems to come from a NPC being played unilaterally by the GM.</p><p></p><p>I didn't read the remaining 10 pages. The consistency of what appeared to be going on in the first 6 pages suggests that they are representative enough.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8028280, member: 42582"] This is all metaphor. I'm trying to have a literal discussion about how RPGing can work. In the OP example, it is [I]the GM [/I]who decides the result of the PC's insult, and also the result of calling for the guards. And those decisions appear to be constrained only by prior, unilateral decisions the GM has made about those various NPCs. The player has no opportunity here to establish fiction, or even to constrain the fiction that the GM establishes. That may be good; it may be bad. The fact that the OP posted about the session not playing out as well as hoped suggests that, on that occasion at least, it was not perfect. In the AW play example, it is the player who is able to force the GM to choose whether Isle does what Marie wants, or instead has her brain fried. It is the player who is able to force the GM to decide that Plover is the most dangerous of the NPCs will Mill is a non-violent child of 12. That is a higher degree of agency in respect of the shared fiction. And it is very transparent as to how and why the GM is making those decisions - ie they're forced by the rules of the game. If, in my BW play example, the Scavenging check had succeeded then it would have been the player who authored the presence of the mace in the tower. Because it failed, it was me the GM who got to author what happened next. And I wrote in the black arrows. We can see here different systems, which take different approaches to framing checks - BW uses "say 'yes' or roll the dice", AW uses "If you do it, you do it"; 5e D&D uses "if the GM wants to allow a check, s/he can" - and different approaches to establishing consequences - BW uses [I]intent-and-task[/I]; AW uses various approaches for various moves, but the examples we've been looking at are [I]force the GM to make a decision[/I]; 5e D&D uses [I]GM decides as s/he sees fit in light of previous unilateral unrevealed authorship[/I], These different approaches produce different degrees of player agency in respect of the shared fiction. And not in some metaphorical sense - in the literal sense of [I]who gets to decide what is the case, and what happens next, in respect of the shared fiction[/I]. This is not system neutral. There are many systems where the GM is not expected to prepare NPCs. Apocalypse World is one - see eg the actual play example where the GM makes up details about Mill as part of the process of action resolution. Classic Traveller is another - see eg the rules for resolution of Streetwise checks (Book 1, p :15 "The referee should set the throw required to obtain any item specified by the players (for example, the name of an official willing to issue licenses without hassle = 5+, the location of high quality guns at a low price = 9+).") Your characterisation of the discovery Crown of Revel is not system neutral either. I don't know o any system in which a player can declare such an outcome. (I'm sure there are some; but I don't know them.) In Burning Wheel as in D&D a player can declare "I look in the box for the Crown of Revel". That is not a declaration of "a fact in the fiction". It is a declaration of an action, no different from "I stab the orc". What differentiates the two systems is [I]how the action is resolved.[/I] In D&D, as typically played, the GM is expected to decide what follows from that action declaration, canonically at least by reference to his/her notes. In Burning Wheel, assuming that there is table consensus that the Crown [I]might[/I] be in the box given the established fiction, the GM is expected either to "say 'yes'" or to set a difficulty for an appropriate check (which could be anything from Scavenging to Box-wise to Crown of Revel-wise depending on the details of the context). I don't fully understand why you seem so hesitant to address this as a matter of action resolution: [I]I look in the box for the Crown of Revel[/I]. If you won't consider that action resolution, and various ways that a system might go about resolving it, you will not be able to understand how Burning Wheel works, or even how Streetwise works in Classic Traveller. I read the first page closely and skimmed the next five. It doesn't record anything about the procedures of play, so I can't tell for sure. What follows is conjecture based on your accounts upthread of how you approach RPGs. My understanding from the list of Dramatis Personae is that the GM was playing the child Turlk and that a player was playing the character Joybell. I therefore conjecture that the player decided what questions Joybell asked Turlk, and that the GM made all the decisions about what Turlk said in response. Two phrases stood out i particular on that first page: [I]we can’t glean from that where they’re from[/I] and [I]we have no way of knowing where their village was[/I]. My guess, reinforced by your reply to [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER], would be that this ignorance of the relevant elements of the fiction resulted from the GM making unilateral decisions about what Turlk knew and was able to convey. If my guesses are correct then yes, this looks like RPGing-as-puzzle-solving, and I would say that the GM had almost all the agency in respect of the content of the shared fiction. This impression is reinforced by a quick look at p 2, where another character who appears to be a NPC controlled by the GM - Jorly - provides information about the Cracked Shield tribe. This then appears to shape the next sequence of play - "We headed off to the Cracked Shields". Reading on: while it's not clear, I gather that the GM made all the decisions about the compound and the elder called Rask. And decided to provide the players with information about The Masks. The sense of play involving solving puzzles is reinforced by this bit at the bottom of p 4: "We recognized those as Vicious Mockery and Toll the Dead -- which means psychic and necrotic damage. That confirms what Barnett told us about necrotic damage being good against them" Then, very similar to [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER]'s hypothetical upthread, we have a description of a street which I assume was all decided by the GM. Thus it would be the GM who established that the street has no place "at all helpful for Fiona and Orryk hanging out for a couple of hours and observing the place." On page 6 we are told about "one of the most important conversations of Joybell’s life". This all appears to be driven by the GM - eg the idea of "vendetta" which I gather is the crux of it seems to come from a NPC being played unilaterally by the GM. I didn't read the remaining 10 pages. The consistency of what appeared to be going on in the first 6 pages suggests that they are representative enough. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay
Top