Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 9504290" data-attributes="member: 70468">Based on the subsequent discussion, I think I have a better understanding of what you mean. Thanks.As an aside, I don’t have a negative perception of “railroading”. I prefer to assess games for what they offer and decide based on whether that sounds fun. Sometimes that would in fact (and has been) a “railroad”. There’s maximalist take on play in RPG discourse that I find a little frustrating. Sometimes I don’t actually need a lot of “player agency” as long as there are interesting decisions to be made or things to do.I adapted the example from the improv wiki article on <a href="https://improwiki.com/en/wiki/improv/blocking" target="_blank">blocking</a>. Assume that without invoking game mechanics, the answer is some form of “no”. My intent is to work through an example to establish similarities and differences between these definitions.Do game mechanics matter for this distinction? If I always say “no” unless one engages with the game (e.g., to make a check, action roll, start a conflict, etc), is that different than if I decide the answer is always “no” no matter what mechanics you invoke? Like if you cast detect thoughts, and the NPC just happens to be wearing a ring of mind-shielding.I’m pretty sure I’ve referred to preventing actions from succeeding no matter what as “blocking” before, though I usually don’t tie it back to improv. I’d liken it more to blocking in sports (e.g., you attempt to take a shot, but the guy in front of you swats it away).It seems to me, based on the above definition, that “blocking” is referring to preventing people from playing the game. The DM is trying to fulfill his role in this example, but the players aren’t engaging. This is blocking the DM from doing that. Devising various ways of ensuring that players fail no matter what (e.g., having “consequences” in “success with consequences” negate the success, ensuring failure) is also blocking.If I’m understanding your definition of “blocking” correctly, it’s not possible in the game I’m designing. By rule, success is success. A check is instigated by the players when they want to change the status quo, and the GM must either accept it or suggest consequences, which starts the check resolution procedure.If the result of a check is a success, it must be respected. Checks can also include consequences in their results. If there are any, they cannot negate the success. Doing so is a misplay by the GM, and players would be correct to call it out.Obviously, there is nothing I can do to stop people from playing the game wrong, so I don’t worry about trying to enforce that. Anything I tried could likewise also be ignored.I use “RPG” in the title of my game¹ (though I also subtitle it as a “fantasy adventure game”) and will probably mention in the introduction that it’s a “role-playing game”, but I don’t plan to spend much time waxing poetic about it. I’d rather just tell people how to play the game and what it’s about.[HR][/HR][1]: I’ve so far refrained from announcing it publicly and plan to continue doing so for now. While I’ve gotten over referring to it as my “homebrew system”, it’s still just several piles of notes. It feels weird to talk about it by name when it’s not even organized enough that I could give someone a PDF of the core rules (and yet my players refer to our sessions by its name, which means it’s probably a “me” thing).</blockquote>

Verification