Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5576468" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think we are working here with different notions of consequences, and also a different understanding of the relationship between game and metagame.On consequences - choices can have all sorts of consequences. Material gain and loss are only one of many possible ranges of consequence, and often not the most important. So even within the fiction of the gameworld, consequences can ensue even if treasure is not lost or foregone.Second, if the GM makes up the treasure that has been lost, from the point of view of the fiction it is still the case that some material benefit has been foregone - because, from the point of view of the fiction, then (everything else being equal) had the PC not destroyed the treasure he would have had both the old loot and the new loot. Whereas now he has only the new loot.So even from the point of view of material gain and loss, if the GM makes up the treasure there are nevertheless consequences for the choice within the fiction.Now, let's look at the real world. If the GM does not put in new treasure, then what is achieved by the player who chooses to destroy the necromantic treasure out of principle (who, given what Elf Witch has said upthread, is a hypothetical and not an actual player) is to reduce his/her PC's mechanical capabilities, in order to make a point about value. Whereas had the player been expedient, s/he would have had a more mechanically capable PC. Unless you take the view that playing the game is itself meant to be a lesson in the morality of sacrifice, this doesn't seem to me to send much of a message other than "if you play the game in order to make points about value, you'll run the risk of having a less mechanically capable PC, and therefore (everything else being equal) a less fun time".When an author writes a story in which the protagonist affirms the valuable choice over the expedient one, s/he does not per se have a harder time writing the story, or receive fewer royalty payments. Likewise for when an author's protagonist affirms expedience over value. There is no good reason I know of why RPGs need to be different in this respect, or will better support value-focused play by being different in this respect.In fact, my experience is the opposite: if (i) improved mechanical capability produces a more fun game, and (ii) expedient rather than value-focused play is more likely to proudce that capability, then (iii) players will favour expedience over value. And, as well as my own experience, this is also the impression I get from stories of classic D&D play, where mercenaries are treated as expendable and sheep are herded through the Tomb of Horrors to detect all the traps.(Part of the reason, in my view, for the drift away from XP rules to "level by fiat" in Dragonlance/2nd-ed style play is to try to sever the nexus express in (ii) above. I think the notion that combat and RPing are at odds, which becomes very prominent around the same time, has a similar origin: combat prowess is the element of AD&D play most affected by treasure acquisition, which in turn is best achieved, in typical AD&D play, by expedient conduct. Unfortunately, these changes to AD&D play tend to very strongly empahise GM force over the storyline as an alternative to "dungeon bashing" (the standard description for mercenary/expedient play), which is certainly not a type of RPGing that I find very functional.)Still reflecting on the metagame: the real consequences for theme and value-focused play are like the consequences for an author. When the PCs in my game decided to tame rather than kill a dire bear who was threatening them, the important consequences were expressed by one of the players: "I feel really good about not having killed that bear". When one player in my game decided to have his PC ruthlessly kill an NPC rescuee (whose status was ambiguous as between companion and prisoner) as the whole party was fleeing a collapsing temple, the important consequences were the looks of shock and surprise on the faces of the other players. That is, the consequences, like the consequences for an author, consist in audience response. The ingame fictional consequences are simply further grist to that mill - they are not ends in themselves.The board rules put limits on examples I can provide in response to this, but I would say that as a general rule this is not true.Here is a trivial example that I hope does not violate board rules. Yesterday evening, while shopping, my daughter asked me to buy her a type of packaged chees thatshe has seen her friends take to kinder. It is more expensive than the cheese we normally buy. And it has more packaging. But my daughter wants to fit in at kinder.The actual values I conemplated when deciding whether or not to buy the cheese were (i) the benefits to the family of saving that money for other, more important things, (ii) the environmental implications of using more packaging, and (iii) the pleasure my daughter would get from fitting in better with her friends. A further value I didn't reflect on at the time, but that is obviously relevant to my decision, is that I could have got the cheaper cheese and given the money saved to Oxfam or MSF.None of those values is clear cut in terms of their relationship to my choice (how much does my choice support or undercut them?), their importance to the choice (individually, and in relation to other competing values, and in relation to other choices I am making and the way those other choices support or undermine various values), their overall place in a good life, etc. Ambiguity abounds. Nevertheless the choice was a real one that had to be made one way or another.An example from an RPG, that a player of mine actually had to engage in: one PC had decided to join with the "bad guys" (Vecna cultists), help them sacrifice another PC (a sacrifice that the remaining PCs probably lacked the power to stop in any event) and support Vecna in bringing unity and cohesion to a divided country and its preeminent wizards' guild. The third PC had a choice - do I resist, perhaps futilely, or do I follow the lead of the first PC and join with the new order? The values in play, and the consequences of the various options, were ambiguous, but the decision was nevertheless serious and real. As it happened, the PC joined with the new order, received the personal benefits he was hoping for (redemption of his mortgage and a magistracy) and spearheaded a push to end slavery and ethnic purism within the wizards' guild, which had limited but some genuine success.Decisions about what elements to introduce into a fiction are meaningful, in my view, for the audience of that fiction. (Perhaps we could say that, within the fictional world, they have meaning for its fictional inhabitants. But as this meaning is purely fictional, I'm not all that interested in it.)And part of how they get that meaning is that the choice to introduce them into the fiction shows us something about what the author thinks is worth saying, or reflecting on. That is, authorial choices bring with them implicit valuations about what is worth authoring.Some ways of producing fiction are intended to downplay this second aspect of authorship (eg most mainstream TV dramas). But an RPG tends to make this second aspect of authorshp extremely prominent, given that the authoring is taking place in real time in front of the audience.I have nothing against GM-adjudicated RPGs. I run such a game, and can confidently assert that it is not a railroad. But I have a pretty clear conception of my role - namely, to introduce into play situations that give the players the opportunity to do interesting things with their PCs. What I do not do as a GM is tell my players what sorts of authorship decisions they should make via their PCs. I want to see what they think is worth introducing into the fiction. And I certainly do not want to reduce the pleasure they get from the game as a result of the decisions that they make.I therefore take care to ensure that the ingame consequences - the fictional consequences - of what the players have their PCs do produce more opportunities for more interesting play. And in 4e, where treasure is basically part of the PC-build mechanics, material gain and loss is pretty orthogonal to that. For me, these days, the emphasis is on the changing relationships between PCs and the world's myth and history (and the various NPCs who represent that myth and history). (In the past I have run more politically-oriented campaigns, but I find that they are less well-suited to play focused on classic fantasy tropes that is intended to progress successfully into epic levels.)</blockquote>

Verification