Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6299728" data-attributes="member: 42582">Well, that might be what you mean by contrivance. (Though it seems to set a very low threshold - all I have to do is give the hitherto contrivance some in-fiction rationale, however thin, and it becomes part of the setting.)It is not what I meant in post 60, however, which is the post to which you replied in post 64 upthread. I referred to literary or dramatic contrivances that mean that things work out for the heroes. The easy availability of Raise Dead in D&D is precisely an example of such a contrivance. It doesn't become less so simply because it puts on the cloak of "setting" - any more than the wind that blows Aragorn's ships up the Anduin is less of a contrivance because we can imagine it being sent by the Valar to aid him. (I mean, a deux ex machina is inherently part of the setting, but is still the quintessence of contrivance.)Says whom?In post 39 upthread I replied to [MENTION=2182]shadow[/MENTION], saying that if our goal, in D&D play, is to simulate  "the reality found in legends and fantasy fiction", we need to appreciate that "it is hard for a highly simulationist RPG to achieve the pacing, in play, that is typical of legends and fantasy fiction." And in post 60, to which you replied in post 64, I added further that "[t]he difference from real life is that the heroes consistently get lucky, roughly in proportion to their dedication and commitment. . .  I think simulationist rules tend not to produce such contrivances."If you don't want your fantasy RPGing to simulate "the reality found in legends and fantasy fiction", that's your prerogative. But I do. And I stand by my claim that simulationist rules tend not to produce the contrivances - including but not limited to matters of pacing, and the fact that luck is roughly proportionate to dedication and commitment - that are inherent to that "reality".In addition to [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION]'s reply to this, I will add: I don't know how everything is going to work out in my 4e campaign. In fact, as the game reaches its crescendo in the upper Epic tier, and hence as the tensions within the party are coming more and more to the surface, it is becoming less and less clear to me what the outcome will be, though I am fairly certain it will involve in some fashion Lolth, the Rod of Seven Parts, the Dusk War, and the conflicts between the Raven Queen, Orcus, Vecna and Kas.The point of contrivances in my preferred sort of play ("Forge-y narrativism" is a loose but good enough description) isn't to determine what happens. It is to set constraints around the possibilities. For instance, whatever happens, it's shape will be determined in certain key ways by the PCs' dedication and commitment (eg the world isn't going to come to an end because of some unrealised activity being undertaken offstage by NPCs). And the final confrontations will be dramatically paced (eg no rocket-tag encounters).I don't like secret backstory - as a driver of GM decisions during action resolution it deprives the players of genuine agency, and as a driver of scene-framing it means that only the GM can really enjoy the drama of what is going on. (Robin Laws has a nice discussion of this in his "On the Literary Edge" contribution to Jonathan Tweet's Over the Edge RPG. Tweet doesn't fully agree. The back and forth on this issue is a precursor to the similar back-and-forth on playstyle issues between Tweet and Rob Heinsoo in 13th Age.)That doesn't mean I wouldn't use an assassin. But it would come out to the players who the assassin was working for!In D&D combat is more exciting than poisoning, which at the table is typically resolved rather passively. This isn't inherent to poison, though - it's just a question of how the game mechanics are designed.In a game that made poison interesting, I'd be happy to use it. (In 4e I have used diseases - they're not just passive in their resolution.)There is another issue about poisoning and some assassinations, though, and that is that it tends to lack a party dynamic. Which takes me to this:To me, that sounds like it could be fun, but not in D&D. D&D relies heavily on party play, and has no mechanics for coordinating the efforts of players whose PCs are geographically separated.Other fantasy RPGs (eg HeroWars/Quest, and to some extent at least Burning Wheel) don't have that same issue, and so might be more suitable for this sort of set-up.What you say is true - in my case it tends to happen only when an old campaigner who has moved out of town or overseas drops by to join in on a one-off basis.Although I would tend to analogise a campaign, rather than an adventure, to a book. Each adventure is more like a chapter.Apropos of nothing in particular, what about Pictionary. Undoubtedly that is a game - a classic parlour game.And the quality of depictions is not irrelevant to Pictionary. It's pretty core to its gameplay.</blockquote>

Verification