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
S/Z: On the Difficulties of RPG Theory & Criticism
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: 7920431" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>I think an example is in order. Let's take a moment from a Blades game.</p><p></p><p>The Cutter is facing off against two thugs. The GM has set the scene as a dark alley on the side of the manor where the crew is doing a score. The player had indicated that their character was watching the egress route to make sure that the crew has a clear line of retreat if the score goes badly. The GM, in his scene setting, thinks it would be cool to have the alley be a dead end alley to up the tension in the scene. The player objects, because he established the egress route as a canal, so any alley must abut a canal and can't be a dead end. This is a disagreement, but the GM loses -- the player has the right to establish this fact and hold it to be true.</p><p></p><p>After acknowledging the change in scene, the GM continues by describing the thugs as approaching, clearly holding clubs against their legs, and saying that this is their alley and the Cutter's has to pay for being there uninvited -- the implication that the payment is a robbery and a beating. The Cutter's player announces that the Cutter leaps into the assault! He's not going to take this kind of intimidation! The GM sets the position of the action (the risk) as desperate with normal effect as the Cutter is skilled with his knives and these aren't hardened fighters, but crossing the distance to the thugs and getting in the blows without a lot of risk isn't going to happen. The player disagrees, and thinks that his Cutter is just that awesome! The GM wins, here, because the GM has the authority to set position and effect for a given action. The player has to accept it, or withdraw their action declaration.</p><p></p><p>The Cutter goes through with it, and rolls. A 5, partial success! This means the character will advance towards their goal (shut these arrogant thugs up, permanently), but suffers a cost or setback. The GM announces that the Cutter tries to stab a thug, but the thug's friend hits him with his club and breaks the Cutter's hand, sending the knife flying before the Cutter's blow lands! The Cutter's player objects, he's owed a success, and it has to be towards his goal of killing or incapacitating the thugs. The GM must change, here, because the system dictates that his authority to establish outcomes is constrained -- he does not have Rule Zero authority to change things, or be the final arbiter here. He must alter the outcomes. He can have the Cutter's hand broken by thug 2, but thug 1 must be out of the fight due to the Cutter's actions. He accepts this, and says that the Cutter's hand is, indeed, broken by the club of Thug 2, but it was the hand not holding the knife, which is now buried in Thug 1's heart. Play will continue, most likely with the player burning stress to mitigate the broken hand and force a different, lesser cost, which the GM will have to accept because that's the player's authority to force such changes, provided he can pay for it.</p><p></p><p>So, in this example, we had three disagreements in outcomes between GM and player. The player was able to dictate the outcome of the first disagreement because the player had the authority to do so. The GM won the second because he did have the authority there. The player AND the GM both had to accept the outcomes in the last because the system assigned different authorities and constraints on both.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7920431, member: 16814"] I think an example is in order. Let's take a moment from a Blades game. The Cutter is facing off against two thugs. The GM has set the scene as a dark alley on the side of the manor where the crew is doing a score. The player had indicated that their character was watching the egress route to make sure that the crew has a clear line of retreat if the score goes badly. The GM, in his scene setting, thinks it would be cool to have the alley be a dead end alley to up the tension in the scene. The player objects, because he established the egress route as a canal, so any alley must abut a canal and can't be a dead end. This is a disagreement, but the GM loses -- the player has the right to establish this fact and hold it to be true. After acknowledging the change in scene, the GM continues by describing the thugs as approaching, clearly holding clubs against their legs, and saying that this is their alley and the Cutter's has to pay for being there uninvited -- the implication that the payment is a robbery and a beating. The Cutter's player announces that the Cutter leaps into the assault! He's not going to take this kind of intimidation! The GM sets the position of the action (the risk) as desperate with normal effect as the Cutter is skilled with his knives and these aren't hardened fighters, but crossing the distance to the thugs and getting in the blows without a lot of risk isn't going to happen. The player disagrees, and thinks that his Cutter is just that awesome! The GM wins, here, because the GM has the authority to set position and effect for a given action. The player has to accept it, or withdraw their action declaration. The Cutter goes through with it, and rolls. A 5, partial success! This means the character will advance towards their goal (shut these arrogant thugs up, permanently), but suffers a cost or setback. The GM announces that the Cutter tries to stab a thug, but the thug's friend hits him with his club and breaks the Cutter's hand, sending the knife flying before the Cutter's blow lands! The Cutter's player objects, he's owed a success, and it has to be towards his goal of killing or incapacitating the thugs. The GM must change, here, because the system dictates that his authority to establish outcomes is constrained -- he does not have Rule Zero authority to change things, or be the final arbiter here. He must alter the outcomes. He can have the Cutter's hand broken by thug 2, but thug 1 must be out of the fight due to the Cutter's actions. He accepts this, and says that the Cutter's hand is, indeed, broken by the club of Thug 2, but it was the hand not holding the knife, which is now buried in Thug 1's heart. Play will continue, most likely with the player burning stress to mitigate the broken hand and force a different, lesser cost, which the GM will have to accept because that's the player's authority to force such changes, provided he can pay for it. So, in this example, we had three disagreements in outcomes between GM and player. The player was able to dictate the outcome of the first disagreement because the player had the authority to do so. The GM won the second because he did have the authority there. The player AND the GM both had to accept the outcomes in the last because the system assigned different authorities and constraints on both. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
S/Z: On the Difficulties of RPG Theory & Criticism
Top