Suggestions for a "what are RPGs"/"how to play RPGs" resources

[clearstream]

It seems to me that of the following two things, the second is a special case of the first, and is of particular importance for RPGing:

*Reasoning in a fiction - that is, extrapolating or adding in ways that permits falsehoods (ie it's a fiction) but that conforms to appropriate background assumptions;​

​

*Narrating a consequence for a player's failed move/check.​

The discussion of non-sequiturs, at least as I've followed it, is about the second of these, not the first.

(Emphasis mine.) So I'm saying narrating a consequence is an instance of extrapolation. Per AW's rules, it must "follow logically from what’s going on in the game’s fiction" i.e. it cannot be anything the group would count a non-sequitur which is a determination they would make through reasoning in the fiction.

(A Bakerian "always" isn't going to stop applying at some arbitrary point: it applies to setting up a future hard move.)

So the fictional situation is that Telemere and Fea-bella are poking around at the base of the structure, while - as I confirmed with Golin's player, but in a pretty cursory fashion - Golin is looking out from atop the structure. This then provides the set-up for the twist consequent on the failure: Golin sees the priates sailing down the river towards them!

Of course there's no in-fiction causal connection between Telemere's search and pirates turning up, other than the loosest one possible: the search involves hanging around by this place on the river, creating time for the pirates to get there.

But the pirates are thematically highly salient - Telemere had earlier been taken prisoner by them; the other PCs had bargained with them as part of brining them into a relationship with Lareth and his cult; when the PCs had taken a recent town phase in Nulb, they had to sleep on the streets because all the accommodations were full of pirates; and Telemere had picked up some gossip at the Nulb docks that the pirates were angry at some Dwarf called "Golin the Beardless" a rumour-mill's combination of the names of (i) the PC Golin and (ii) a pirate-associated NPC Fori the Beardless.

As you've been posting, this sort of GM decision-making, unmediated by random encounter checks, might be out-of-bounds for typical "trad" play. But it's of the essence of Torchbearer! It's how the GM makes the game go!

I've observed that as groups master consequences resolution, their confidence in proposing trouble more loosely causally connected while still thematically salient increases. Some game texts help them in this direction, for example twists in TB2.

They can be immediate obstacles—you’re ambushed while you dither at the door!—or something that causes trouble further down the line.​

​

Approaching pirates seems like an example of trouble further down the line. The difference @AbdulAlhazred has illustrated is reified in the designed procedures, which generally must say

Who chooses the consequences? The rolling player? A different player or players? GM? In some play styles, players expect to know what can go wrong, and roll only if they are comfortable with those stakes.​

​

When must they choose? A common approach is to agree up front that there will be consequences (aka badness, a hard move, a twist), but defer specifying them until the roll fails. Where that is built into system, as in TB2, any roll is perforce consequential (rolling systematically entails consequences.) Notice the difference from approaches where a roll is called for only when it has a chance of meaningful failure, which implies that the consequences are in sight up front.​

​

That second requirement - when must they choose - offers designers a choice between

If we are rolling dice, then we are going to see consequences​

​

If we can see consequences, then we are going to roll dice​

Procedural differences might have arisen out of background norms or philosophies of play, but once implemented cease to represent any division in what is available to one play style over another. The choice has many implications, but differences in the resultant fiction can be rather subtle

Telemere rolled for search and failed, so GM narrated approaching pirates​

​

GM narrated approaching pirates, so Telemere knew searching would call for a roll​

 

[clearstream]

Following up my last, I'm starting to feel that the fundamental design choice for consequences resolution is between

If we are rolling dice, then we are going to see consequences​

If we can see consequences, then we are going to roll dice​

To assay an initial list of implications

Under A, it is more viable for players to say when they want to roll dice, because in doing so they are making play interesting​

​

Under B, it is more viable for GM to say when to roll dice, because prior to roll someone has to know what could happen that is interesting (in many games, GM as controller of game world has resources for knowing that)​

​

A is efficient in not calling for the effort of extrapolation unless the roll fails, but can be over-productive (open to the criticism that the safest course is not to roll)​

​

B is efficient in limiting calls for rolls to when the fictional situation already contains something interesting, but can be under-productive (open to the criticism that it limits consequences to things that are immediate)​

 

[aramis erak]

Can you say more about that example? There's feasibly some semantic ambiguity in the application of the term "non-sequitur".

Not quite sequiteur: The result of a despair was introduction of foes unrelated to the action undertaken - Pykes while searching for a smuggler den... on Alderaan in 19 BBY.
Sequiteur: despair, triumph, and fail on attempt to follow the target the Pykes want dead - PC arrested, broken out by a second Bad Batch...
Non-sequiteur: Trying to convince local cops on Alderaan to intervene in a hot shooting on behalf of the character fleeing the Pykes... Success and despair... an Imperial Stormtrooper Lieutenant (newly minted and just revealed, of course) coming to arrest all involved. Especially the Bad Batch. Negotiation resulted in only the clones being arrested...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

(Emphasis mine.) So I'm saying narrating a consequence is an instance of extrapolation. Per AW's rules, it must "follow logically from what’s going on in the game’s fiction" i.e. it cannot be anything the group would count a non-sequitur which is a determination they would make through reasoning in the fiction.

(A Bakerian "always" isn't going to stop applying at some arbitrary point: it applies to setting up a future hard move.)

This is becoming rather absurd. Obviously new material can quite easily be added to play, it happens all the time. This new material is not going to follow directly in all cases from existing material. The GM is free to introduce new threats, for example.

All that is really required, ultimately, is that the whole thing 'hang together' in some sense. The carnivorous locusts are not causally related to, and do not 'follow from' the character driving a car, or crashing. There's no logical chain of cause-and-effect which leads from one to the other.

Obviously what Baker is touching on is simply basic story logic, you can introduce new and 'fitting' elements, like the locusts, in order to give impetus to the story and produce the sort of milieu that is intended (IE post-apocalyptic weirdness in this case).

If you CANNOT introduce anything that doesn't follow exactly from what came before, then it is going to be a pretty short game, because once the current scene is played out, all that will be left is "Oh, did that cause something else to happen?" Heck, NO TYPE OF PLAY, trad, nar, whatever, is as restrictive as THAT, maybe classic dungeon crawls, but even those have a 'town phase' where brand new stuff can happen.

I don't think what Baker is saying is empty, I just think he only intends it in a pretty narrow sense, and beyond that you rely on a sense of appropriateness to the genre, coupled with transparency.

 

[clearstream]

This is becoming rather absurd. Obviously new material can quite easily be added to play, it happens all the time. This new material is not going to follow directly in all cases from existing material. The GM is free to introduce new threats, for example.

All that is really required, ultimately, is that the whole thing 'hang together' in some sense. The carnivorous locusts are not causally related to, and do not 'follow from' the character driving a car, or crashing. There's no logical chain of cause-and-effect which leads from one to the other.

Obviously what Baker is touching on is simply basic story logic, you can introduce new and 'fitting' elements, like the locusts, in order to give impetus to the story and produce the sort of milieu that is intended (IE post-apocalyptic weirdness in this case).

If you CANNOT introduce anything that doesn't follow exactly from what came before, then it is going to be a pretty short game, because once the current scene is played out, all that will be left is "Oh, did that cause something else to happen?" Heck, NO TYPE OF PLAY, trad, nar, whatever, is as restrictive as THAT, maybe classic dungeon crawls, but even those have a 'town phase' where brand new stuff can happen.

I don't think what Baker is saying is empty, I just think he only intends it in a pretty narrow sense, and beyond that you rely on a sense of appropriateness to the genre, coupled with transparency.

A misunderstanding here is caused by misuse of the term "non sequitur". It's stems from a disagreement on semantics... and as I'll try to explain, were that settled we could reach a better diagnosis.

I'm agreeing that a wide range of additions to the fiction can be admissible as consequences: they are sequiturs... they fit Baker's rule. Genuine non sequiturs - those properly labelled by that term - jarringly fail to follow. The way I would use the term, no non sequiturs have thus far been illustrated. The chain of causality in your locusts example is fine: the locusts are reasoned from world premises, and the character is in their path because she lost her car.

The rejection of proposed fiction you illustrated and associated with styles of play isn't to do with whether it is a sequitur: it's to do with whether it must be in sight before the roll. Under some styles of play proposals are rejected if they're not in sight before the roll: player hasn't been given the agency they expected over what they put stake.

It's misdiagnosis to say that is about what follows. It's not, it's about what's fair.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Following up my last, I'm starting to feel that the fundamental design choice for consequences resolution is between

If we are rolling dice, then we are going to see consequences​

If we can see consequences, then we are going to roll dice​

To assay an initial list of implications

Under A, it is more viable for players to say when they want to roll dice, because in doing so they are making play interesting​

​

Under B, it is more viable for GM to say when to roll dice, because prior to roll someone has to know what could happen that is interesting (in many games, GM as controller of game world has resources for knowing that)​

​

A is efficient in not calling for the effort of extrapolation unless the roll fails, but can be over-productive (open to the criticism that the safest course is not to roll)​

​

B is efficient in limiting calls for rolls to when the fictional situation already contains something interesting, but can be under-productive (open to the criticism that it limits consequences to things that are immediate)​

Well, let's actually look at AW... An arc of play will start with the GM framing a scene. This can be described in terms of some GM move or other, which is motivated by an ethos of putting pressure on the PCs. It will thus ALWAYS present an obstacle. In AW there is no such thing as a scene which doesn't do this. At most there may be scenes where the PCs do jobs or a Hard Holder might engage in a bit of more strategic level move making. But even here some problem is being engaged.

So, we have a scene and this an obstacle/problem which is either something that is important to a PC, or actively threatening. The players will now describe their response and the GM will suggest appropriate moves to be triggered. Stakes, anything the players put at risk by their actions, will be explicated as well. The GM may not fully explicate indirect consequences, DW definitely hints at GMs possible making moves that are 'off the table' but IMHO the very best practice is for everything to be transparent.

Thus the need for checks comes from the GM in the form of a scene, but players are invoking actual rolls, and practically speaking often know how to pick specific ones, or the GM will often suggest choices. AW famously has 7-9 outcomes where the players' goal is achieved, or progress is made, but a consequence accrues or whatever they staked is lost/diminished/threatened. This produces ongoing pressure as well as allowing an advancement to a new fictional state or scene.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A misunderstanding here is caused by misuse of the term "non sequitur". It's stems from a disagreement on semantics... and as I'll try to explain, were that settled we could reach a better diagnosis.

I'm agreeing that a wide range of additions to the fiction can be admissible as consequences: they are sequiturs... they fit Baker's rule. Genuine non sequiturs - those properly labelled by that term - jarringly fail to follow. The way I would use the term, no non sequiturs have thus far been illustrated. The chain of causality in your locusts example is fine: the locusts are reasoned from world premises, and the character is in their path because she lost her car.

The rejection of proposed fiction you illustrated and associated with styles of play isn't to do with whether it is a sequitur: it's to do with whether it must be in sight before the roll. Under some styles of play proposals are rejected if they're not in sight before the roll: player hasn't been given the agency they expected over what they put stake.

It's misdiagnosis to say that is about what follows. It's not, it's about what's fair.

I mostly agree with you here. I'm sure we probably have slightly different lines, but in terms of what is appropriate and fair, I think we're likely to agree in most cases.

 

[clearstream]

Well, let's actually look at AW... An arc of play will start with the GM framing a scene. This can be described in terms of some GM move or other, which is motivated by an ethos of putting pressure on the PCs. It will thus ALWAYS present an obstacle. In AW there is no such thing as a scene which doesn't do this. At most there may be scenes where the PCs do jobs or a Hard Holder might engage in a bit of more strategic level move making. But even here some problem is being engaged.

So, we have a scene and this an obstacle/problem which is either something that is important to a PC, or actively threatening. The players will now describe their response and the GM will suggest appropriate moves to be triggered. Stakes, anything the players put at risk by their actions, will be explicated as well. The GM may not fully explicate indirect consequences, DW definitely hints at GMs possible making moves that are 'off the table' but IMHO the very best practice is for everything to be transparent.

Thus the need for checks comes from the GM in the form of a scene, but players are invoking actual rolls, and practically speaking often know how to pick specific ones, or the GM will often suggest choices. AW famously has 7-9 outcomes where the players' goal is achieved, or progress is made, but a consequence accrues or whatever they staked is lost/diminished/threatened. This produces ongoing pressure as well as allowing an advancement to a new fictional state or scene.

Yes, and with A (if we are rolling dice, then we are going to see consequences) I do have in mind PbtA and players invoking rolls. As you point out, MC has the job of judging what roll is invoked, but it's down to player to say if they're doing the thing that invokes that roll. I'm also thinking of BitD where player is urged to say what they're rolling.

It's not that it can't work to have MC calling for rolls, but that A in contrast to B is going to better enable players invoking rolls because rolling always invites consequences. In going for what they want players risk what they don't want. Granted as you say that pressure can be put on them outside of rolls... that just wasn't my focus here.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, and with A (if we are rolling dice, then we are going to see consequences) I do have in mind PbtA and players invoking rolls. As you point out, MC has the job of judging what roll is invoked, but it's down to player to say if they're doing the thing that invokes that roll. I'm also thinking of BitD where player is urged to say what they're rolling.

It's not that it can't work to have MC calling for rolls, but that A in contrast to B is going to better enable players invoking rolls because rolling always invites consequences. In going for what they want players risk driving with what they don't want. Granted as you say that pressure can be put on them outside of rolls... that just wasn't my focus here.

I just think PbtA is sort of a mix. Sometimes a GM move is pretty soft, or you get into the 'downtime' where moves are generally a bit less connected to something immediate. This is where players often choose where to take things next. I think it is hard to pin those into A. Often the game might not really be all one or the other.

 

[thefutilist]

Following up my last, I'm starting to feel that the fundamental design choice for consequences resolution is between

If we are rolling dice, then we are going to see consequences​

If we can see consequences, then we are going to roll dice​

To assay an initial list of implications

Under A, it is more viable for players to say when they want to roll dice, because in doing so they are making play interesting​

​

Under B, it is more viable for GM to say when to roll dice, because prior to roll someone has to know what could happen that is interesting (in many games, GM as controller of game world has resources for knowing that)​

​

A is efficient in not calling for the effort of extrapolation unless the roll fails, but can be over-productive (open to the criticism that the safest course is not to roll)​

​

B is efficient in limiting calls for rolls to when the fictional situation already contains something interesting, but can be under-productive (open to the criticism that it limits consequences to things that are immediate)​

Your analysis of the two types is spot on but for type B it's more accurate to say that the player who has authority over the trigger is the one who calls for the roll (or not).

Sorcerer uses type B resolution and the trigger is (1) 'someone does something that conflicts with someone else's priorities' AND (2) it's feasible for the action to effect change.

Clyde has had enough of the violence and the guilt caused and wants to walk away. Remington tells him that they're so near to being rich and he can indulge in his guilt when they have the gold.

Is what Remington says a conflict? whoever controls Clyde gets final say. If it is a conflict then the dice must be used.

Or

Clyde shoots Remington. Does Remington want to get shot? if not then it's a conflict. Who chooses whether Remington wants to get shot? whoever has authority over Remington.

I point this out because it has some interesting consequences. PbtA uses Type A resolution but because it's triggers always align with conflicts of interest you can (if you so desire), play Apocalypse World as a Type B game.