Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8830735" data-attributes="member: 42582">The vehemence that is apparent in some of the posts in this thread surprises me.In my most recent RPG sessions we've been playing Torchbearer 2e - it's a system that is a homage to classic D&D, but mechanically is a variant on Burning Wheel. It has a reasonably consistent extended contest procedure that can be used to resolve a range of conflicts: kill, capture, drive off, flee/pursue, convince, convince crowed, trick, etc.The conflict type is established by a combination of fiction and stakes. Generally the players have a big say, but in some circumstances (eg in response to a failed check) the GM gets to set the stakes. If the players win the extended contest they get the core of what they want, but depending on their degree of victory (ie how much did it fall short of total victory) they have to compromise. And vice versa if they lose.It's crucial to resolving an extended contest that the players see their rolls, act on knowledge of what they roll, be able to use their dice pool and dice result manipulation resources, etc - this is how they can try and shape outcomes in ways that they want to, based on their degree of investment and their judgements about resource management.It's also the case that everyone is bound by outcomes. So in a kill conflict, a compromise can involve PCs injured or even killed. In a drive off conflict, a compromise may involve the PCs being delayed, or reinforcements turning up, or the fleeing enemies taking their loot with them.In a social conflict - like convince, convince crowd, or trick - a compromise may mean that the PCs are convinced, or have to keep a promise they made, or are themselves tricked. Players not abiding by the outcome would be tantamount to cheating.So this system has plenty of metagaming. And also plenty of "roleplaying" in the sense of players being bound by outcomes in the play of their PCs. The two are not at odds.Another system I really like is Classic Traveller. It has nothing like Torchbearer extended conflicts. Nor does it have any way of generating outcomes that bind players in the play of their PCs in the way a TB convince or trick conflict might - its social mechanics are purely one-way (ie for finding out how NPCs respond to PCs), with the exception of morale rules which can bind PCs to surrender or flee. There's less metagaming in Traveller than Torchbearer in my experience, because of the different mechanics. There is still plenty of roleplaying.4e D&D plays differently from both these systems. Marvel Heroic RP plays fairly similarly to Torchbearer. Cthulhu Dark plays fairly close to Classic Traveller. Etc, etc.These vehement assertions about what's "cheating" and what's "roleplaying" seem to be grounded in a very narrow conception - frankly, what sometimes looks like an ignorant conception - of the variety of RPGs and approaches to RPGing that exist.</blockquote>

Verification