Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5577376" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think that this right here is the point at which our perspectives diverge.The players of an RPG aren't the characters in a story. They are the authors of a story. And the author of a story does have control over the consequences that befall the characters in that story. The way that the author exercises that control is what makes the story interesting - and it can be interesting even if the author takes a non-standard approach to consequences (cf Camus's Outsider).So, the way I see things (and this is why I used the notion "railroading" upthread) is that either the GM can attempt to impose his/her own critical/aesthetic judgement on the story - prewrite it, if you will - or s/he can leave space for the players to write the story that they want to write. I think that Dragonlance and its ilk take the first approach. I favour the second.As a general rule, I prefer that most of these sorts of decisions have no consequences in my game - I can think of dozens of more interesting questions to address in an RPG than who's on watch when!Path taken is sometimes interesting, and when it is I'm happy for it to be addressed in play.These day, the question of when to sleep I treat as a consequence of skill challenge resolution rather than as something under the players' direct control - this works better with other aspects of 4e.Why not?In fact, in my game, many decisions are of less heavy thematic weight than what Hussar described, because ultimately my game is a reasonably light, fairly derivative fantasy RPG. But what would be wrong with a heavier game of the sort Hussar describes (assuming that the players had the emotional stamina for it)? I've played like that at Cons, and they're some of the more memorable RPGing experiences I've had.I'm not sure I entirely follow all this, but there seems to be a disconnect here between Hussar and I, on the one hand (I hope, Hussar, that you don't mind me roping you in) and RC and you on the other (and likewise I hope that this creation of groupings is not out of line).I'll try again: when I go to the theatre or watch a movie or read a book, the authors of the fiction do things that are (hopefully) engaging, interesting, and thought-provoking - not just because of the ingenuity of their plots, but because of the cleverness of their insight.I want an RPG that is engaging, interesting and even perhaps thought-provoking in the same way. This means that I want my players to have the same sort of freedom as the author of a fiction has. The peculiarity of the RPG form means that much of their authorship is undertaken via the vehicle of their PCs acting within the fictional world.But if I, as GM, purport to already settle all the interesting evaluative questions as part of my framing of the world, then how are my players to exhibit clever insight? To surprise me? To express their own views on the thematic and evaluative questions raised?When Graham Greene wrote The End of the Affair, he didn't need a referee to tell him whether coming to love Christ via the medium of Catholic representations of Jesus's battered human body is a good or bad thing. Rather, he wrote a book that explored that idea and experience (among others). It expresses his complex view on the matter. And when I read it, it provides me with insight, and enables me to reflect, on my own views of the same matter. Piss Christ (admittedly a photograph rather than a traditional fiction) comes at something like the same topic from a very different perspective.Not only is a referee's adjudication not helpful to the authors of these works, but I don't need or want a referee's adjudication to help me in responding to them. In fact, any attempt at such adjudication would just be another contribution to the same discussion - perhaps worthwhile, perhaps not, but no more or less definitive than the works themselves.Likewise in an RPG. The players play their PCs. This tells us things about the players and can also be used by the players to tell us other things as well. I, as a fellow player or GM, can respond to that. But a referee's adjudication of the evaluative points made is not necessary. The points made carry their own meaning - they generate their own responses in their audience - this is the consequence that drives the game forward. How that consequence then relates to ingame matters is a secondary issue - there are any number of ways of handling that, and I think general prescriptions are hard to give.</blockquote>

Verification