Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7380314" data-attributes="member: 42582">You say this as if differences in mechanics and techniques don't matter! That is, as if all that matters in a RPG is what fiction results.But that obviously isn't the case. RPGing is about playing a game. Who makes the moves, and how they are resolved, is fundamental to the whole activity.Upthread, you suggested that your approach to RPGing can yield "story now". But here we see one reason why not.Four hours (or whatever) of nothing interesting happening from anything the protagonists do is not a story. It might resemble an Andy Warhol movie, but those are deliberate repudiations of story! (And I'm not sure that anyone actually watches Empire.)Failure is not the same things as nothing interesting resulting from what is attempted.If everyone at the table knows that the game is not silly, then everyone equally knows that (in the absence of some context, such as searching the home of a fairy) there is no point looking for wands in trees, as there won't be any there.This repeated concern, from you and now [MENTION=6778044]Ilbranteloth[/MENTION], that the first things players will do who actually have the power to contribute to the content of the shared fiction will be to find gold and items for their PCs, rests on the same illusion as other concerns you've expressed. The gameworld is not a reality. If you don't want a silly gameworld, it's easy to avoid: just don't author one! If you want PCs who are more than just a Gygaxian id, then build and play them.I don't understand what you are claiming here, or what purported contrast you are drawing.What's the DC for your D&D character to flap her arms and fly to the moon? What's the DC for a 1st level character to jump into a volcano and survive? What's the DC for your 1st level fighter PC to try and kill ten orcs in one round?There are all sorts of limits - some imposed by the mechanics, some by a shared understanding of the fiction - on what actions can be meaningfully attempted in a RPG. (The main one that trips people up in classic D&D is stuff like letting fighters move silently with a DEX check, or climb with a STR check, while forcing thief PCs to use the generally weaker percentage chances - even Luke Crane fell into this rookie trap GMing Moldvay Basic, <a href="http://www.story-games.com/forums/discussion/15909/a-tale-of-two-maps" target="_blank">as he reports in one of his blogs</a>.)It is predetermined in the metagame. It's a bit like "hit dice" in AD&D: you don't need to earn your hit dice independent of gaining levels - rolling for additional hit points is part-and-parcel of gaining a level.But unlike classic AD&D, earning levels in 4e isn't a reward (despite the misleading chapter heading in the 4e DMG) - provided you actually play the game (ie engage with the fiction via your PC) then your PC will go up levels. The gaining of levels, and the progression through the tiers of play, is a background to the fiction that the game actually focuses on.Well, it's dull if you want to play a game where the goal of play is to overcome challenges to unlock power ups for your character. It's not dull if you want to play a game that more closely resembles (say) Arthurian legend, or the Iliad, or the Silmarillion, in which equipment is more often a gift or a marker of status, and the goals of the protagonists are to do stuff with their gear.Of course a 4e game can have some items like the Silmarils as a focus. But those are not the norm. The norm is closer to the Elven rings of power, or Gil-Galad's spear, or the gifts given by the gods to Perseus, or Captain America's shield. They figure as elements of a narrative, not as rewards for skilled play.<a href="https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?736425-Burning-Wheel-First-Burning-Wheel-session" target="_blank">Read the actual play report.</a></blockquote>

Verification