Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
The Best Thing from 4E
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6567510" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I'll bite! (In a slightly tangential way.)</p><p></p><p>Some years ago now, [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] pointed me to <a href="https://isabout.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/the-pitfalls-of-narrative-technique-in-rpg-play/" target="_blank">this blog piece</a>, about "narrative technique" in RPGing.</p><p></p><p>The main point of the blog is that there is a tension between (i) player authorial power and (ii) player-driven, scene-framing-style play - namely, that if the players get to author their own solutions or outcomes via plot power, this undercuts the emotional power of engaging a challenge/crisis via your PC. Here is how the blog author (Eero Tuovinen) puts it:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">[W]hen you apply narration sharing to backstory authority, you require the player to both establish and resolve a conflict, which runs counter to the Czege principle [an observation that "it’s not exciting to play a roleplaying game if the rules require one player to both introduce and resolve a conflict"]. You also require the player to take on additional responsibilities in addition to his tasks in character advocacy . . . <em>nstead of only having to worry about expressing his character and making decisions for him . . . he has to make decisions that are not predicated on the best interests of his character, but on the best interests of the story itself.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>The author goes on to contrast narration-sharing with scene-framing-style RPGing:</em></p><p><em></em></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><em>The fun in these games from the player’s viewpoint comes from the fact that he can create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character; this is the holy grail of rpg design, this is exactly the thing that was promised to me in 1992 in the MERP rulebook. And it works, but only as long as you do not require the player to take part in determining the backstory and moments of choice. If the player character is engaged in a deadly duel with the evil villain of the story, you do not ask the player to determine whether it would be “cool” if the villain were revealed to be the player character’s father. The correct heuristic is to throw out the claim of fatherhood if it seems like a challenging revelation for the character, not ask the player whether he’s OK with it – asking him is the same as telling him to stop considering the scene in terms of what his character wants and requiring him to take an objective stance on what is “best for the story”. Consensus is a poor tool in driving excitement, a roleplaying game does not have teeth if you stop to ask the other players if it’s OK to actually challenge their characters.</p><p></em></p><p><em>Burning Wheel allows more formal player backtory authority than does 4e - I've given the examples upthread, of using the Circles mechanic to bring NPCs into play. But it tries to use various devices to make sure that these don't lead to the problem just described. First, they require checks - so mechanically, they work out the same way as other action declarations, with the GM having control over failure narration. Second, the GM still has authority over framing the PCs (and thereby the players) into conflicts/challenges, so the players' introduction of backstory (in the form of "NPCs my guy would know", or "information about Greyhawk that my guy would know") is by way of response to those challenges, not establishing new conflicts for his/her PC.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Otherwise the basic mechanical play of BW is pretty traditional. It has some fairly simple "limit-break" stuff (various sorts of fate points that add bonus dice and can be used to dodge PC death). Otherwise the bells and whistles are in the advancement rules (which create incentives (i) not to always use your biggest possible bonus, and (ii) to take on impossible tasks) and the rules for earning the fate points, as well as "fail forward", "say yes" and "no retries" as key GMing techniques.</em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6567510, member: 42582"] I'll bite! (In a slightly tangential way.) Some years ago now, [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] pointed me to [url=https://isabout.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/the-pitfalls-of-narrative-technique-in-rpg-play/]this blog piece[/url], about "narrative technique" in RPGing. The main point of the blog is that there is a tension between (i) player authorial power and (ii) player-driven, scene-framing-style play - namely, that if the players get to author their own solutions or outcomes via plot power, this undercuts the emotional power of engaging a challenge/crisis via your PC. Here is how the blog author (Eero Tuovinen) puts it: [indent][W]hen you apply narration sharing to backstory authority, you require the player to both establish and resolve a conflict, which runs counter to the Czege principle [an observation that "it’s not exciting to play a roleplaying game if the rules require one player to both introduce and resolve a conflict"]. You also require the player to take on additional responsibilities in addition to his tasks in character advocacy . . . [I]nstead of only having to worry about expressing his character and making decisions for him . . . he has to make decisions that are not predicated on the best interests of his character, but on the best interests of the story itself.[/I][/indent][I] The author goes on to contrast narration-sharing with scene-framing-style RPGing: [indent]The fun in these games from the player’s viewpoint comes from the fact that he can create an amazing story with nothing but choices made in playing his character; this is the holy grail of rpg design, this is exactly the thing that was promised to me in 1992 in the MERP rulebook. And it works, but only as long as you do not require the player to take part in determining the backstory and moments of choice. If the player character is engaged in a deadly duel with the evil villain of the story, you do not ask the player to determine whether it would be “cool” if the villain were revealed to be the player character’s father. The correct heuristic is to throw out the claim of fatherhood if it seems like a challenging revelation for the character, not ask the player whether he’s OK with it – asking him is the same as telling him to stop considering the scene in terms of what his character wants and requiring him to take an objective stance on what is “best for the story”. Consensus is a poor tool in driving excitement, a roleplaying game does not have teeth if you stop to ask the other players if it’s OK to actually challenge their characters.[/indent] Burning Wheel allows more formal player backtory authority than does 4e - I've given the examples upthread, of using the Circles mechanic to bring NPCs into play. But it tries to use various devices to make sure that these don't lead to the problem just described. First, they require checks - so mechanically, they work out the same way as other action declarations, with the GM having control over failure narration. Second, the GM still has authority over framing the PCs (and thereby the players) into conflicts/challenges, so the players' introduction of backstory (in the form of "NPCs my guy would know", or "information about Greyhawk that my guy would know") is by way of response to those challenges, not establishing new conflicts for his/her PC. Otherwise the basic mechanical play of BW is pretty traditional. It has some fairly simple "limit-break" stuff (various sorts of fate points that add bonus dice and can be used to dodge PC death). Otherwise the bells and whistles are in the advancement rules (which create incentives (i) not to always use your biggest possible bonus, and (ii) to take on impossible tasks) and the rules for earning the fate points, as well as "fail forward", "say yes" and "no retries" as key GMing techniques.[/i] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
The Best Thing from 4E
Top