Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9080907" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER]'s post just upthread covers most of what I would want to say in reply.The bolded text up to the comma is the following:RQ is a game premised on "neutral" GMing. The resolution of a declared action is not sensitive to how important it is to, or how emotionally laden it is for, a PC (or their player).That point is made with reference to RQ as discussed by Ron Edwards in 2003, and contrasted with HeroWars/Quest. Nothing in the post I'm replying to contradicts it. <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/" target="_blank">Another quote from Ron Edwards</a>, intended to illustrate an orientation towards simulationism rather than narrativism, makes the same point:A weapon does precisely the same damage range regardless of the emotional relationship between wielder and target. (True for RuneQuest, not true for Hero Wars)You quote the following from a GM of a more recent version of RQ:I began by just having them walking through Apple Lane and seeing a sign advertising the need for a group of heroquesters to protect local cattle. This was a good opportunity to emphasize some culture of Glorantha and I had them make some culture and homeland rolls. The fruits of these rolls were gaining some reasons as to why their characters would want to take risks to protect cows. I tied these reasons to their passions as well, particularly loyalty and devotion to temples. This provided a further opportunity to talk about passions and augmentation. I portrayed Heortarl as written in the text, being a bit overeager towards heroquesting. I went and had him express marriage interest in one of the Adventurers as a way to introduce the "forwardness" of Glorantha social custom. My players did a great job of playing off of what I was doing. I was able to include in the information that Heortarl is designed to give the players about ignorance of the ruins, as well as setting up the Orlevings as an antagonist.Nothing here contradicts what Edwards says and what I have reiterated. The players do not author the goals and aspirations for their PCs - rather, the GM tells the players what these are by reference to the setting (ie "neutral extrapolation") - I had the make some culture and homeland rolls. The fruits of these rolls were gaining some reasons <to declare actions>. And My players did a great job of playing off of what I was doing. One could hardly have clearer instances of (to quote myself) The GM, in framing and in narrating consequences, [being] expected to extrapolate from the fiction.You also quote the rulebook itself telling the players what their goals and aspirations for their PCs should be.Having had a quick look at <a href="https://rqwiki.chaosium.com/rules/passions.html" target="_blank">this wiki</a>, Passions in contemporary versions of RQ seem very similar to Pendragon passions. These are well-understood as a simulationist technique. They illustrate <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/" target="_blank">Edwards point that</a>In Simulationist play, morality cannot be imposed by the player or, except as the representative of the imagined world, by the GM. Theme is already part of the cosmos; it's not produced by metagame decisions. Morality, when it's involved, is "how it is" in the game-world, and even its shifts occur along defined, engine-driven parameters.Here is the text from that rules wiki that makes the point:Passions define an adventurer’s beliefs, inspire them, and can be used to augment abilities. The gamemaster may call for a Passion roll, or the player may suggest one. Remember that the gamemaster has the final word when attempting to use a Passion for inspiration. . . . Passions may be gained during play. Plenty of opportunities are given to gain enemies, lovers, rivalries, and loyalties. When something significant occurs, the gamemaster or player may suggest that a Passion has been created. If both agree, the player and gamemaster then determine the starting value, usually 60%.We see that morality and theme, as represented and engendered by passions, are "how it is" in the game-world (ie these are rated properties of the PC) and cannot be imposed or invoked by the player unless the GM, "as the representative of the imagined world", agrees.<a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/" target="_blank">Edwards also discusses Pendragon expressly</a>:one can care about and enjoy complex issues, changing protagonists, and themes in both sorts of play, Narrativism and Simulationism. The difference lies in the point and contributions of literal instances of play; its operation and social feedback. . . . Consider the behavioral parameters of a knight player-character in The Riddle of Steel and in Pendragon. This one's a little trickier for a couple of reasons, first because Pendragon has two sets of behavioral rules, and second because both games permit a character's behavioral profile to change. 1) The Pendragon knight includes a set of paired, dichotomous Traits (e.g. Worldly / Chaste) which are scored numerically, and which change scores inversely. They are used either (a) as behavior-establishers (roll vs. Cruel to see whether you behead the churl for his rudeness) or (b) as record-keepers for player-driven behavior (you beheaded him? Check Cruel, which increases its chance to raise its score later). The Riddle of Steel knight has no equivalent system to (a); all character behavior is driven by the player. Its Spiritual Attributes, however, do rise and fall with character behavior much as Pendragon's (b). 2) The Pendragon knight also may develop one or more Passions, which are expressed in the form of a fixed set of bonus dice for actions that support that Passion. These are established through play and may increase, although not decrease; different Passions may conflict within a single character. The Riddle of Steel's Spiritual Attributes (Drive, Destiny, Passion, Faith, Luck, and Conscience) act as bonus dice much as in Pendragon Passions but (a) may be individually eliminated and substituted with another Spiritual Attribute by the player with very little restriction, and (b) are intimately connected to the most significant character-improvement mechanic. I suggest that both games include the concept that personal passion is a concrete effectiveness-increase mechanic, but that Pendragon does so in a "fixed-path-upwards" fashion (when the knight's passions are involved), whereas The Riddle of Steel does so under the sole helm of the player's thematic interests of the moment. Furthermore, the latter game directly rewards the player for doing so. . . . a character in Narrativist play is by definition a thematic time-bomb, whereas, for a character in Simulationist play, the bomb is either . . . present in a state of near-constant detonation (the Pendragon knight, using Passions), or its detonation is integrated into the in-game behavioral resolution system in a "tracked" fashion (the Pendragon knight, using the dichotomous traits). Therefore, when you-as-player get proactive about an emotional thematic issue, poof, you're out of Sim. Whereas enjoying the in-game system activity of a thematic issue is perfectly do-able in Sim, without that proactivity being necessary.The comparison to TRoS can be complemented by noting its similarity to Burning Wheel or even Torchbearer: the player is permitted to choose their Belief ("under the sole helm of the player's thematic interest of the moment'), and to choose how they express their Belief (including via Embodiment in BW, or Mouldbreaker in either system). It's no coincidence that the Forewood to more recent versions of BW is written by Jake Norwood, designer of TRoS.Even when a passion is in play, the GM in Pendragon or RQ is neutral: for instance, all the consequences of a Passion being used in play are set out on the Inspiration Effect Table:<table style='width: 100%'><tr><td>Result </td><td>Inspiration Effect </td></tr><tr><td>Critical Success: </td><td>One ability of the player’s choice temporarily receives a +50% bonus. </td></tr><tr><td>Special Success: </td><td>One ability of the player’s choice temporarily receives a +30% bonus. </td></tr><tr><td>Failure: </td><td>Subtract –10% from all further rolls made for the duration of the situation that brought on the state. </td></tr><tr><td>Fumble: </td><td>Immediately reduce the Passion by –1D10% and fall into despair, incapable of doing anything more than running away or hiding. Despair lasts for a few minutes or a few days, determined by the gamemaster. </td></tr></table>And in the quote from the RQ GM, we see the GM identifying passions as reasons for the players to declare certain actions ("internal cause is king" - here, the internal cause being the emotional state of the PC).Whereas in BW the GM, in framing, is expected to challenge the Belief(s) a player has authored for their PC, and in narration of consequences for failure is expected to double down on those challenges. But the GM is not identifying or expected to have any say over what would count as a reason for a PC. That is entirely in the player's hands. Again <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html" target="_blank">to quote Edwards</a>,a "player" in a Narrativist role-playing context necessarily makes the thematic choices for a given player-character. Even if this role switches around from person to person (as in Universalis), it's always sacrosanct in the moment of decision. "GMing," then, for this sort of play, is all about facilitating another person's ability to do this.The quote from the RQ GM reinforces the point that Edwards makes and that my posts have been reiterating. It doesn't contradict it.I didn't say that it was. I talked about the relationship of the GM's duties to a particular feature of the players' decision-making, that is, the selection of goals or aspirations for their PC.You present this as a point of disagreement, but it is quite consistent with what I posted, especially when we recognise that the advice is "parallel" only in the sense that (i) it pertains to the same subject matter (ie PC relationships) while (ii) being different.Furthermore, the RQ GM is not obliged to use the PC's wife as an element in problems or circumstances faced by the PC (Luke Crane, in the BW rulebook, is using "situation" synonymously with Ron Edwards's use: "<a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/2/" target="_blank">a problem or circumstance faced by the character</a>"). For instance, in RQ play it would be quite legitimate for the vampyr to be pursuing some other NPC, and for the PC's wife to figure solely as a source of comfort or respite. The exploration of Gloranthan marriage practices need not be put under pressure as it would be in HeroWars/Quest.The generic notion of importance is one that you have introduced, not me. Likewise "player character engagement with the subject".What I posted was this:The neutrality in question is - as these examples show - primarily neutrality (or, if your prefer, disinterest) as to what the players want for their PCs. It extends to neutrality as to what NPCs want - eg in the neutral approach, this should be worked out by extrapolation from established fiction, by rolling on a chart or whatever. Whereas in (say) HQ or BW, as the example I just quoted shows, the GM is to work out what NPCs want by brining that into deliberate relationship with what the players want for their PCs.It may be that you have misread "disinterest" as "uninterest". The disinterest is manifest in the operation of the Inspiration Effect Table, which takes the whole matter out of the hands of the participants and hands it to the system ("<a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/" target="_blank">the imagined cosmos in action</a>").That table, together with the passages you quoted from the RQ GM, all reiterate the points that I have made about the contrast between the simulationist and the narrativist approach to GMing. They do not contradict it one iota!</blockquote>

Verification